SB299 to Governor

[JKTex]

Yeah. It seems to me the display wording won't change much as opposed to just adding "intentional", but the "public place" could have a pretty good effect.

No, the change is significant. It is "intentionally display" vs. "intentionally fail to conceal". I'm not sure how some aren't seeing how different that is. It's big.

[CJD]

Yeah. It seems to me the display wording won't change much as opposed to just adding "intentional", but the "public place" could have a pretty good effect.

No, the change is significant. It is "intentionally display" vs. "intentionally fail to conceal". I'm not sure how some aren't seeing how different that is. It's big.

I'm just thinking if you intentionally fail to conceal, you might as well be displaying as you know full well what you are doing and that your piece is visible.

[JKTex]

Yeah. It seems to me the display wording won't change much as opposed to just adding "intentional", but the "public place" could have a pretty good effect.

No, the change is significant. It is "intentionally display" vs. "intentionally fail to conceal". I'm not sure how some aren't seeing how different that is. It's big.

I'm just thinking if you intentionally fail to conceal, you might as well be displaying as you know full well what you are doing and that your piece is visible.

If it were, there would be no difference in the words used. There is however, and the words are a game changer.

[CJD]

Yeah. It seems to me the display wording won't change much as opposed to just adding "intentional", but the "public place" could have a pretty good effect.

No, the change is significant. It is "intentionally display" vs. "intentionally fail to conceal". I'm not sure how some aren't seeing how different that is. It's big.

I'm just thinking if you intentionally fail to conceal, you might as well be displaying as you know full well what you are doing and that your piece is visible.

If it were, there would be no difference in the words used. There is however, and the words are a game changer.

Ok I believe you. Could you give me an example of when you would be intentionally failing to conceal, but not displayin? What would owb on hip be?

[Keith B]

Ok I believe you. Could you give me an example of when you would be intentionally failing to conceal, but not displayin? What would owb on hip be?

Take out 'intentionally'. I believe that will help.

A person who 'fails to conceal' their hand gun or 'fails to conceal' their identity gets discovered that they are carrying or someone figures out who they are. In the case of handog, he exposed his pistol and was discovered, so the cops took him to jail because he 'failed to conceal' his gun. When the case was reviewed, the DA determines the whole statute must apply, it was not intentional, so no law was broken and charges are dropped.

Now, with the word change, if you put something on 'display', your intent was to show that item to others. Think of a display at a store or at an art gallery; you want people to see it. If you accidentally reveal your handgun, you are not displaying it. If you take it out of the holster and show it to someone,then you ARE displaying it because you want the other person to see it.

Maybe that clarifies it?

[Rrash]

How about this scenario. You meet a friend/co-worker at a restaurant. When you get there, you see a 51% or a valid 30.06 sign. You return back to your vehicle to secure your weapon. In the process of transferring the firearm(s) to your storage spot, someone happens to walk by close enough to see what is in your hand. You have now unintentionally displayed your handgun in a public place, but not in a way meant to cause alarm. SB 299 will clarify the wording of the law under these circumstances, assuming the well-intentioned passer-by calls the police.

It might, but I think if you are in a public locaiton you should not be haphazard about still trying to conceal it when transfering from body to hidden in the vehicle.

Good point. I was thinking of a scenario, where the vehicle was already parked (so you aren't going to drive to a "private place" to transfer), and while you did the best you could to be discreet, someone still saw the weapon. I could see a good samaritan calling the police to report a suspicious guy hiding a gun, etc. And I wouldn't fault a good samaritan as long as his/her intentions were good in nature.

Another thought was in the case of maybe a kid pulling on a parent's clothing or doing something in a way that briefly or unintentionally exposes a grip or something along these lines.

[CJD]

Ok I believe you. Could you give me an example of when you would be intentionally failing to conceal, but not displayin? What would owb on hip be?

Take out 'intentionally'. I believe that will help.

A person who 'fails to conceal' their hand gun or 'fails to conceal' their identity gets discovered that they are carrying or someone figures out who they are. In the case of handog, he exposed his pistol and was discovered, so the cops took him to jail because he 'failed to conceal' his gun. When the case was reviewed, the DA determines the whole statute must apply, it was not intentional, so no law was broken and charges are dropped.

Now, with the word change, if you put something on 'display', your intent was to show that item to others. Think of a display at a store or at an art gallery; you want people to see it. If you accidentally reveal your handgun, you are not displaying it. If you take it out of the holster and show it to someone,then you ARE displaying it because you want the other person to see it.

Maybe that clarifies it?

Not really, because intentional is what makes the language confusing, without it it is no longer confusing. If you intentionally fail to conceal, which means you purposefully do not hide it, how is your intention NOT for others to see it?

I understand accidental exposure, but if you purposefully leave it exposed, then you obviously do not care whether or not people see it. So, that being said, could the difference in the language really be the difference between "not caring" if people see and "wanting" people to see? If so, how would you prove it one way or the other?

[Keith B]

Ok I believe you. Could you give me an example of when you would be intentionally failing to conceal, but not displayin? What would owb on hip be?

Take out 'intentionally'. I believe that will help.

A person who 'fails to conceal' their hand gun or 'fails to conceal' their identity gets discovered that they are carrying or someone figures out who they are. In the case of handog, he exposed his pistol and was discovered, so the cops took him to jail because he 'failed to conceal' his gun. When the case was reviewed, the DA determines the whole statute must apply, it was not intentional, so no law was broken and charges are dropped.

Now, with the word change, if you put something on 'display', your intent was to show that item to others. Think of a display at a store or at an art gallery; you want people to see it. If you accidentally reveal your handgun, you are not displaying it. If you take it out of the holster and show it to someone,then you ARE displaying it because you want the other person to see it.

Maybe that clarifies it?

Not really, because intentional is what makes the language confusing, without it it is no longer confusing. If you intentionally fail to conceal, which means you purposefully do not hide it, how is your intention NOT for others to see it?

You are correct. However, the issue becomes the initial interpretation by an officer and hot taking all of the statute into consideration. The big thing is we actually only have one case where an individual failed to conceal and was arrested. Because of the lack of numerous cases (which is really a good thing) we do not know how or if this change will affect anyone's perception. I think it will help, but it may not make one bit of difference.

As said before, I really don't care that the failure to conceal was changed to display; my big HOORAH moment is the change in adding the word 'force' to the statute.

[CJD]

As said before, I really don't care that the failure to conceal was changed to display; my big HOORAH moment is the change in adding the word 'force' to the statute.

Absolutely, that was my main purpose for support of this bill!!

[MeMelYup]

The way I see it is the burden of proof will no longer be on the CHL holder.

[SherwoodForest]

Perhaps it's kind of like the difference between seeing a car DISPLAYED at a car dealership - on a raised platform with an array of colorful balloons attached , and " Dealer Special" inscribed on the windshield VS my nice looking 1998 4x4 Chevy pickup w/ camper parked in my drive way, and it catches your eye because that's just what you have been looking for. So you hit the brakes, and knock on my door to inquire as to whether I might sell it to you.

[CJD]

I wish an owb holster openly carried wouldn't count as "displaying" but instead would be intentionally failing to conceal.

[SherwoodForest]

Perhaps it's kind of like the difference between seeing a car DISPLAYED at a car dealership - on a raised platform with an array of colorful balloons attached , and " Dealer Special" inscribed on the windshield VS my nice looking 1998 4x4 Chevy pickup w/ camper parked in my drive way, and it catches your eye because thats just what you have been looking for. So you hit the brakes, and knock on my door to inquire as to whether I might sell it to you.

Silly of me to "quote" myself - but in the above analogy I left out one important ingredient relevant to my take on SB299. My house and driveway sits dead-denter in the rear of a culdesac/court , and I have 25 trees standing between my shaded 1998 Chevy P/U and the main street. Point being - a person has to be scanning for the truck to even notice it. Hence it isn't "displayed".

"Obscured "perhaps = not in plain view.

[CJD]

So maybe, bottom of gun is visible under shirt= ok because not displayed, whereas open holster= displayed.

[polekitty]

How about this scenario. You meet a friend/co-worker at a restaurant. When you get there, you see a 51% or a valid 30.06 sign. You return back to your vehicle to secure your weapon. In the process of transferring the firearm(s) to your storage spot, someone happens to walk by close enough to see what is in your hand. You have now unintentionally displayed your handgun in a public place, but not in a way meant to cause alarm. SB 299 will clarify the wording of the law under these circumstances, assuming the well-intentioned passer-by calls the police.

How about this scenario, just like Rrash, except you’re on a motorcycle and you go back to the parking lot to lock your weapon in your saddle bag and someone sees you removing it from your holster. Is that intentional or display?