Seems that this scenario fits the definition of 'unintentionally failing to conceal'. I suppose a LEO could interpret as you are openly carrying, but I think even a marginally competent lawyer would have no trouble articulating that it was 'unintentionally failing to conceal' vs. open carrying. I also like to believe that virtually all LEO's have common sense and would probably view it this way as well.casp625 wrote:Sorry, let me clarify. Currently, if I am concealed carrying, I grab something off a shelf, my shirt catches on my gun exposing it, and I continue to walk around I could use a defense that I did not intentionally display my firearm in a public place as it was accidentally caught during shopping. right?Glockster wrote:And I think we're going to have threads here that discuss how you have or could do the "Texas tuck/untuck" as you move from places with no business owner restrictions to one that is 30.07 posted but not 30.06 posted.casp625 wrote:I also don't know why this is so confusing? The only time you *might* have an issue if a business prohibits open carry by posting a 30.07 sign. Then, if your handgun is partially visible, you *may* be committing a crime.
Now let's say a store has a 30.07 sign posted and the same situation from above happened. The law states that a partially visible gun is legal as long as we have our CHL and it's in a belt (or shoulder holster). Couldn't a LEO interpret this as you were open carrying? Wouldn't you have to prove you were conceal carrying and your shirt just got caught?
Search found 1 match
Return to “HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now”
- Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:35 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
- Replies: 276
- Views: 42815