thetexan wrote:You're certainly correct about intentionally displaying which is different from the previous 'fail to conceal'. I'm referring to the definition of a concealed handgun and by extension the definition of an unconcealed handgun. The test as it relates to printing, the subject of the op, is whether or not a gun is concealed, by definition, for those purposes where concealment is a requirement of the rule. I merely point out that where concealed is used as a criteria we turn to that definition to determine what constitutes concealed or non concealed. For example PC 30.05 f2.
The new intentional display standard applies to what one must do to be guilty of carrying a non concealed handgun,which,otherwise by statute must be concealed.
We have no disagreement.
Tex
PC 30.05 (f)(2) does not define what concealed is at all. It just provides a defenses to prosecution if the person has a CHL and the only purpose for trying to charge them with trespass is they were carrying a concealed weapon. 46.035 is the only place that the definition exists. And, printing is not illegal, period. As one instructor puts it 'Unless you can read the shirt is so tight you can read Glock on the grip of the gun then you are not in violation.
TPC 30.05
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or
in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was
forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a
license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to
carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was
carrying.