That's exactly where I was going.Soccerdad1995 wrote:If I was a defense lawyer and my client had been charged with violating a 30.06 sign (where no 30.07 sign was present), then I think my first question of the prosecution's star witness would be "did you see my client's gun?" If yes, then it sounds like it wasn't really concealed in the first place.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “30.06 sign but no 30.07”
- Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:38 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: 30.06 sign but no 30.07
- Replies: 45
- Views: 9096
Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07
- Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:16 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: 30.06 sign but no 30.07
- Replies: 45
- Views: 9096
Re: 30.06 sign but no 30.07
So if CCW is banned in a location but open carry isn't, then what's the opposite of printing? e.g., what's the minimal amount of firearm legally required to be visible? If someone carried in a way which most people would be considered to be concealed, and then somehow his gun was discovered, would any laws have been broken? All that happened was the gun was visible, which isn't illegal.