Search found 2 matches

by casp625
Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:57 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
Replies: 276
Views: 42815

Re: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now

Glockster wrote:
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.
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.
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?

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?
by casp625
Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:41 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now
Replies: 276
Views: 42815

Re: HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now

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.

Return to “HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now”