SB 299 Question

[RoyGBiv]

Bill as Engrossed: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... 00299E.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Question...
If we move the legal hurdle from "failure to conceal" to "displays", what's the legal definition of "displays" in this context?
Specifically, if I am carrying concealed OWB and my weapon is "printing" or my concealing garment rides up when I'm reaching for the big jar of peanut butter on the top shelf at the grocery, would SB 299 protect me from being convicted of a code violation?

[Gat0rs]

Currently, you only need to intend to fail to conceal. Thus, if you intend to move your shirt up to get your wallet and knew that would expose your gun, you intended to fail to conceal.

I think under the bill, you would need to intend to display in plain view. Laws are interpreted generally by their plain meaning. Merriam Websters defines "Display" as

a : to put or spread before the view <display the flag>
b : to make evident <displayed great skill>
c : to exhibit ostentatiously <liked to display his erudition>

Thus, I would think, under the bill, if you intend to get your wallet and know that your gun would show somewhat, but you are not intending to "display" it in plain view, you are fine. Arguably, under the bill you would have to carry the gun in plain view or pull it out to be convicted, because a jury would need to find that you intended to display the weapon in plain view.

But who knows until it is passed and tested.

[JKTex]

It simply clarifies the law as it is.

It's not just "failing to conceal" but "intentionally failing to conceal". If you reach for that big box of diapers on the top shelf and your shirt lifted and your handgun became exposed, it could be said that you intended.....to reach, therefore you intended to fail to conceal. Your intended actions resulted in in exposure, thus you intended to expose. Apparently there have been cases and I'd think the outcome would be a crap shoot.

The clarification this bill provides now puts the burden on whether you intended to display. In the scenario above, you intended to reach and that's where your intentions ended; you didn't intend to display.

It's sad to need it, but it is needed to protect us from word choice that can be used to manipulate our intended action. I guess you could say it makes an intentional act, not the cause of a secondary unintentional outcome.

[RoyGBiv]

The clarification this bill provides now puts the burden on whether you intended to display. In the scenario above, you intended to reach and that's where your intentions ended; you didn't intend to display.

Ok... I get that... Clearly..

But how big is the envelope? How far does "intentionally displays" go?

1. I'm carrying OWB and my cover garment is a bit short. The bottom of my holster is exposed.
2. I'm carrying OWB and my cover garment is a bit short. The tip of my muzzle is exposed.
3. I'm carrying OWB and my cover garment is a bit tight, my gun is "printing" noticeably.
4. I'm carrying OWB without any cover garment, essentially OC. Is that "intentional DISPLAY"?

[JKTex]

3 of those 4 you are obviously intentionally not concealing. In other words, your intention results in displaying.

But any reasonable person would be more conscientious.