TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hansdedrich wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I think you are way over analyzing this and making something very simple complicated. Exposed is exposed. Concealed is concealed.

Okay, is an inside the waist band holster considered open or concealed? It would seem to me that the lawmakers could easily clear things up by defining open carry as: " an OUTSIDE the belt waist belt holster or shoulder holster." It's a sticking point I believe because gangbangers wear guns stuck in the front of their pants, not different from me wearing an inside the belt holster in the front of my pants because an IWB holster is not visible. This might sound like nit picking until you are arrested and learn the details in court instead of asking the hard questions now. Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to protect everyone here who is law abiding.

Why are you mixing apples and oranges?

There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code wrote:Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Some good points Charles, but as you well know, it may not be a 'reasonable person' doing the observing and thus becoming the complainant. That's one of the problems we have when relying on the literal rule of statutory interpretation of law, eh?

I've been reading the posts and agree with some and disagree with others and I have some thoughts addressing some of the concern. I agree with the concerns related to wanting to be informed about the laws/bills, etc. I think some of the more passive feelings about the proposed "holstering" issue (and other LOC issues) are expressions from folks who don't intend to carry openly after it passes, so the probabilities are lower that they will encounter a legal problem.

And I agree that too many explicit requirements in a law could open the entrapment gate for the defendant.
There will always be vague and ambiguous wording in any law or set of instructions. That's why if you do find yourself in that kind of defensive situation, make sure you have some witnesses, a good lawyer and a bucket of money.

On my wishlist for the laws and bills is more use of the "..it is an exception to.." rules and fewer "..is a defense to prosecution.." rules. The more applications of the "exceptions to" a section of law, the less chances you have of an arrest resulting in a charge being put on you, and the more cost avoidance you will have. Even though the "..is a defense to.." wording may make you feel warm and fuzzy when reading a law, by the time you get to that point probably means you've been charged and indicted, and are paying someone a lot of money to sit in front of a jury.

v7a wrote:

K5GU wrote:So, what's logical about a hospital buying gun safes?

I think the argument is that before entering a prohibited building on campus the CHL licensee would "check" their gun into a safe. However, the proposed bill doesn't require accommodating CHLs in this way (and thus the cost argument is invalid). If a CHL has a need to enter a prohibited building they can lock the gun in their car.

Exactly. And like Chairman Phillips said, playing the 'high cost card' is a common attempt by someone to kill a bill.

v7a wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

v7a wrote:Surprised how strongly Representative Nevarez pushed back on the witness who claimed (referencing this article) that Campus Carry will take 40 gazillion dollars away from cancer research. While he's obviously still going to vote against, I have some newfound respect for him.

Are you sure that was Navarez? I didn't think he was in the room at the time.

Not sure from the video, but I thought it was his voice. I might be mistaken though.

It was Nevarez if you're talking about the testimony mentioning MD Anderson's cost of $20 m for gun safes. Please correct me but doesn't the existing laws prohibit CHL carry in a hospital? So, what's logical about a hospital buying gun safes?