TexasCHLforum.com

JMen7T6 wrote:Thanks Charles for your explanation. I will continue to watch it's progress. I would hope that in the long run it would enhance our rights and not be a door to limiting or eliminating them.

Texas Flyer wrote:I've been talking to all of the police officers that I can and my friends that are cops and they ALL have one thing in common.....they are 110% against CHL holders open carrying. The word idiotic comes up a lot when they describe their feelings on the subject.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Skiprr wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote:One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

http://scholar.google.com/

Or, specifically, you can start with this.

It's really much the same as books.google.com, save that it indexes specific types of repositories and includes some court opinions, patents, theses, and the like.

My life just got so much neater!

PhillRoath wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:There's no research that shows that open carry deters crime that I am aware of. For that matter, there's no research that shows concealed carry deters crime either.

Look for the book "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott (1998?) where he shows crime has decreased where concealed carry is allowed.

Phill

TXlaw1 wrote:Is there really research that shows that open carry deters crime? If so, I'd like to be pointed to it.

Jasonw560 wrote:Charles, any chance once of your bills being a concealed carry in primary and secondary schools for teachers and staff? Perhaps the parents, as well?

Charles Cotton wrote:I have at least three bills I want to file next session, but none of them are high-profile bills, although one will certainly garner opposition. (That bill would make CHL's exempt from TPC §46.03 as well as TPC §46.02.)

JKTex wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:The traveling exception to UCW is longstanding and does not require concealment, as opposed to the new (2007) car carry exception.

Ah, I got it. Remaining off topic, doesn't that go back, pre-2007 to the issue of defining traveling? And the issue with some LEA's who committed to taking you for a ride and letting the DA work it out?

Just curious, so I digress.

JKTex wrote:

flintknapper wrote:Still legal when "traveling" always has been.

I know we're off topic here, but briefly, can you elaborate? I can assume you mean in a car, but I won't assume so, can you elaborate considering a handgun in a car still must be out of plain view. Or, point me to the law and or situation you're referring?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is traveling;

74novaman wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

74novaman wrote:Yes, having California style open carry is certainly worth pushing for.

Maybe we shouldn't count states where you have to carry a gun without ammo in it. Just a thought.

You can open carry legally (loaded) outside of city limits in California. Counties do have the option to prohibit it, but not all do.

So you can open carry a useful (i.e. loaded) gun in some counties in Cali. Yep, they should be on the list of states that are better on gun rights than Texas. Sheesh.

74novaman wrote:Yes, having California style open carry is certainly worth pushing for.

Maybe we shouldn't count states where you have to carry a gun without ammo in it. Just a thought.

Jasonw560 wrote:I'm just a goofy paramedic, but let me get this straight....if the 30.06 provision was left alone, then OC ccouldn't carry past a gunbuster or other generic no guns sign unless they untucked their shirt, but if there was a valid 30.06 sign, they would have to tuck their shirts in, correct? If they carried in an OWB.

Just trying to untangle it early in the morning.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

Bullwhip wrote:I'm no kind of legal guy, just a country mechanic. I don't see the problem with having one sign for concealed and open carry. Can you explain it for the bumpkins like me?