TexasCHLforum.com

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jorge wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

Does that bicyclist in Fort Worth count?

I wouldn't think so. He was searched incident to arrest after fleeing from the officers.

Chas.

So, in other words Charles, he was charged with failure to conceal in a case currently posted with significant discussion on your own forum where you are claiming there are no such cases. Why don't you just admit again that since these cases aren't reported unless they're appealed, neither you nor I can say with any confidence whether there are or are not any such cases? You've made you're point that it's a low priority issue and the probability of an actual arrest is a weak argument for open carry. I don't disagree with that.

Still, that you are unaware of harassment, arrests, charges or convictions under this law doesn't mean it has not or will not happen. Whether this law is forever completely ignored by the police, it's wrong that the law exists on the books, and for that reason alone, I support lobbying the legislature to repeal it.

I'll give you the last word.

jorge wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

Does that bicyclist in Fort Worth count?

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've been asking you to identify one for all of us and you haven't done so because you can't. Your claim is bogus and I sincerely hope you keep saying it. You are destroying the credibility of your open-carry position. Constantly crying wolf like Sarah Brady does will do more to scuttle your open-carry campaign than will any outside opposition.

Chas.

You've been asking and I've been rebutting your claim that I need to provide you with such evidence. That's OK. You keep on repeating that ad nauseum.

Conagher wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?

SA-TX

I know I'm starting to sound like I have more reasons for being opposed to open-carry, but that's not the case. My opposition is based solely on the backlash and increased 30.06 signs I believe we will see. None of the other issues related to open-carry matter to me, since it would be a matter of personal choice.

I'm just growing weary of the unfounded scare tactics some people are using. The real irony is that doing so hurts credibility of the open-carry movement.

Chas.

Chas.

With all due respect, and in the vein of fairness could one also consider "backlash and increased 30.06 signs" an "unfounded scare tactic"?

Thanks and have a nice day!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The history I feel is of value is Texas history, not the history of other states that OpenCarry.org wants to use as an indication of the response in Texas. Even without seeing a single gun, there was a near panic when CHL passed in 1995. It was so bad that clear "no guns" decals were popping up everywhere and we had to pass a bill in 1997 establishing the "big ugly sign" (30.06 signs) to stem the tide. Does this mean a similar response to open-carry will occur? Of course not. But I believe it is a better predictor than the reaction of people in rural PA or AZ.

HGWC wrote:Not one person has come forward and made you aware? Therefore, it hasn't happened? Therefore it can't happen? Therefore we have nothing to worry about? It doesn't follow. It's a non-sequitur. I don't have to prove the negative to demonstrate that.

SA-TX wrote:Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?

SA-TX

HGWC wrote:My point is that just because no one has been convicted does not mean we have nothing to worry about. Getting arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney is plenty enough of a loss of freedom to be very very worried about, even if there is no conviction.

HGWC wrote:This was posted by Blinn77 today on Opencarry.org. Not illegal? No convictions? Nothing to worry about? No subjectivity in the word intentional? Let me know Charles when you can assure us that no one has or ever will be harassed, arrested, charged, or convicted for "unintentional" failure to conceal. I also noticed earlier that you said convictions aren't necessarily recorded unless they're appealed. Let me know when you can actually back up your claim that there have only been two convictions. Until then, I will support anyone lobbying our legislature to eliminate these infringements on our rights.

OpenCarry.org wrote:"Posted: Fri Feb 13th, 2009 03:01 am

I know this is not a "open carry" story, but it does involve carrying a handgun in Texas with a CHL (concealed handgun license).

As I am sure many of you fellow Texans probably have CHL's, I thought you might find this interesting.

I was arrested for "carrying a prohibited weapon, in a prohibited place" which is a 3rd degree felony in Texas.

I was riding in a crew cab truck with some friends, and they pulled over into a large parking lot off the road to try to find a lighter he had dropped on the floor board of his truck. Well once he stopped we all got out to try to find his lighter since two of the passengers were smokers (cigs not the other stuff) and were having nicotine fits.

While standing here in this dark parking lot around this truck, a Pct. 4 Harris County Constable drove by and took notice of us. He decided to pull into the parking lot and see what we were up to.

He asked what we were doing and we explained and he asked to see ID's from all of us. Well since I was carrying my Glock 23 on me, I gave him my D.L. and my C.H.L. as required by law.

He went to his car to run our ID's and I am sure check for warrants. Well after about 8 to 10 minutes, 2 other police vehicles showed up. He returned to me and asked me to turn around a place my hands on the truck. He then removed my handgun off me, and told me "do you realize this is a school parking lot?". In which I replied "no I did not, but I do not see how that is relevant". He then replied "your carrying a handgun on school grounds". I replied "I understand that, but school premises does not apply to a parking lot for a conceal handgun license holder".

He then laughed at me and told me "I think I know the law better then you". In which I said "well in all respect sir, I am T.C.L.E.O.S.E. (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education) certified just like you, as I graduated from H.C.C. Police Academy and past my TCLEOSE test. I am also a Criminal Justice major and I am very much aware of my rights and what the law says. Maybe you are mistaken, and we can look it up in your Texas Penal Code book."

He laughed at me again, and hand cuffed me, then placed me in the back of his cruiser. I was taken to Cypresswood Pct. 4 holding cell, and then later transferred by bus to downtown Harris County Jail. I had to post a $5,000 bail and then immediately headed for home where I grabbed my Texas Penal Code book from when I was in the police academy.

After a little research I found Texas Penal Code 46.035, "carrying a prohibited weapon in a prohibited place by a CHL holder". See they were trying to charge me with a separate crime, that did not and COULD NOT be charged to me, because I am in fact a "CHL holder".

Now low and behold at the end of the statue it says in big print and I quote:

3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.

So armed with this new found knowledge I went into court my first day (with no attorney) and asked to speak to the district attorney who was in charge of prosecuting me in my case. I tried to show her my penal code book and ask her about the statue, in which she replied very much like the officer with "I went to law school. I am quite aware of what the law says", and blew me off.

When the session started she even told the judge "the prosecution is ready to proceed" which in my book means she had read over the case, and felt she had a firm case here.

Well the judge asked me where my attorney was, and when I told him I did not have one, he quickly advised me to be quite and said we would reset the court date until I could find counsel. I tried to explain to him I did not need a attorney and he again warned me of how serious of a matter this is. I ended up having to say "well I know I have a right to represent myself, so if that is what needs to be done for me to be able to speak, then I will take that right". At that point I am assuming he took me more serious and asked me what it was I wanted to show him.

He looked at my penal code book and read the high lighted section I quoted above. Then closed the book and looked at the front cover. It was a 2 yr old edition, so he asked the district attorney to see her copy of the penal code (a newer copy). He checked in her copy to make sure the law had not been revised in the last two years, then asked the D.A., "can you explain this" in which time she was happy to look at the statue for him.

Well after reading it, she kind of stood there dumb founded and quite. The judge called a five minute recess and told the D.A. he wanted to speak to her in his chambers. Five minutes later they returned and he said "having looked at this new found situation, the case is dismissed".

Now since this is already running long, I will skip quite a few steps and say it was not over there. My Glock was taken as "evidence" for my case. I was told I couldn't have it back by Pct. 4 Constables (where it was locked up in their evidence room) because the D.A. had to sign off on something, even though I had paperwork showing the case was dismissed.

Later a friend's wife, who works downtown in that same criminal court building spoke with the officer for that court room, who spoke with that D.A., who told him to relay the message back down to me that and I quote "heck will freeze over before he gets that handgun back".

Fast forward a year later, and many, many calls later, and leaving about 50 voice mails on the Corporal who was in charge of the evidence room, he called me back and told me I could have my pistol back if I promised to stop calling him. I went up there, signed some piece of paper saying I got the pistol back, and he brought it out to me. I don't know if he just figured the D.A. would surely have forgot about it since it was a year later, or what, but on that day, heck must have froze over.

Also I thought that was the end of that whole ordeal (this happened in March of 2006), and now that I have finished my degree in Criminal Justice, and am trying to go into law enforcement, I have now found out that most departments won't look at me because I was CHARGED with a felony. Yup, that is correct. I have been told that I will probably have to go spend $1,000 to a attorney to go to court and try to get that event expunged of my record.

So all in all, this "know it all" officer who was obviously not very knowledgeable of the law, cost me thousands of dollars, a couple days in jail, and possibly my future career in law enforcement.""

HGWC wrote:. . . For example here is a quote from the DPS FAQ on the question:

"Q: What does "concealed" mean?
A: "Concealed" means that the weapon cannot be visible, and that its
presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. It is a
criminal offense for a license holder to carry a handgun in plain view,
or to intentionally fail to conceal the weapon."

This is apparently how a large law enforcement agency interprets the law. It's quite a bit different than the way you're insisting the law is written and intended.

HGWC wrote:. . . It makes you a man with a gun, and we know how that's dealt with socially and by the police. It is a legitimate concern that our little plastic card isn't enough assurance to protect us against that stigma.

HGWC wrote:Repealing the ban on open carry and the laws on failure to conceal would give us more protection. Would that be enough to eliminate the concern? Probably not. Just ask all the people that have been arrested and harassed for open carrying in states where that is perfectly legal.

HGWC wrote:That their argument is unsupported by evidence or even that it misconstrues the legal technicality of the law does not make it false.

HGWC wrote:To demonstrate that we have nothing to worry about, you need to provide evidence that no one in fourteen years this law has been in effect has been harassed, arrested, tried, or convicted. You've admitted that you can't even assure us, for a fact, that no one has been convicted for unintentional concealment.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Again, people should support open-carry if they feel it is appropriate, but they should leave the boogeyman scare tactics out of the debate.

We're talking about real people that call real cops with real handcuffs, not boogeymen.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Unintentional failure to conceal is a smoke screen, not a real threat. In the 14 years since CHL passed in 1995, there are only two reported cases dealing with violation of TPC §46.035(a) intentional failure to conceal. Open-carry supporters claim that those of use who worry about a backlash to open-carry are not presenting realistic concerns, yet they repeatedly argue that inadvertent failure to conceal is a problem. They argue this in spite of the express language of the statute and in spite of the fact that only there are only two reported cases in 14 years. (As for the backlash, all we have to do is look at Texas between 1995 and 1997.)

Support open-carry if you will, but don't base it upon unfounded claims that a high wind will land you in jail.

Chas.

. . . However on this point, it's a non-sequitur to conclude that because there have been only two convictions, CHL holders have nothing to worry about with this failure to conceal law. It just doesn't follow.

HGWC wrote:How many people have beaten the rap, but took the ride anyway or dealt with a direct threat of the ride? I've asked you that before, and you had no answer.

HGWC wrote:Obviously, despite the language of the law, many CHL holders are fearful of taking that ride. That there have only been two convictions doesn't make the case that CHL holders have nothing to fear from this failure to conceal law.

HGWC wrote:I believe in the two cases you've mentioned, you said they were actually cases of threatening someone with a gun.