TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Listening to Sen. Wendy Davis makes me ill. That fact that she was elected to the Senate is puzzling beyond belief.

Chas.

Can you clarify what this does.

A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the
handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9.

It strikes out: "fails to conceal the handgun"
after which is this: displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9

How is "a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9" defined?

For us non layers please.

How is hb48 looking For a vote today (removes chl renewal class)? This would seem to me to be less controversial than hb972.

Case 1:
Verbal argument between a CHLer and another person. CHLer removes a his concealment to "get ready for a fight". That is display calculated to alarm.
Case 2:
At a BBQ, in private residence back yard, I do open carry my BBQ pistol in a holster. After September 1st 2013, it is legal.

wrinkles wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Listening to Sen. Wendy Davis makes me ill. That fact that she was elected to the Senate is puzzling beyond belief.

Chas.

Can you clarify what this does.

A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the
handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9.

It strikes out: "fails to conceal the handgun"
after which is this: displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9

How is "a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9" defined?

For us non layers please.

Hopefully Charles will give you the legal view. My POV is that the former requires you to affirmatively conceal the handgun. IOW, you must make sure the handgun is always concealed. The latter means that it's only a crime if you deliberately reveal your handgun in a way that's designed to alarm people. So, reaching for something on a shelf and exposing your weapon would no longer be a crime. (It never was, but some interpreted the law that way.) Furthermore, it clarifies that it is legal to display your handgun if force is justified under the law, eliminating the very real possibility that you could do so in a justified manner yet still be charged with a crime under this statute. (There is actually a case that Charles has cited where this happened.)

wrinkles wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Listening to Sen. Wendy Davis makes me ill. That fact that she was elected to the Senate is puzzling beyond belief.

Chas.

Can you clarify what this does.

A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the
handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9.

It strikes out: "fails to conceal the handgun"
after which is this: displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9

How is "a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9" defined?

For us non layers please.

Basically we get to go from fielding questions about printing to fielding questions about brandishing. There's more to it, but I'll leave that to more qualified members.

Beiruty wrote:Case 1:
Verbal argument between a CHLer and another person. CHLer removes a his concealment to "get ready for a fight". That is display calculated to alarm.

Yes, but depending upon the circumstances it could be justified under the Penal Code 9 statutes.

Beiruty wrote:Case 2:
At a BBQ, in private residence back yard, I do open carry my BBQ pistol in a holster. After September 1st 2013, it is legal.

It was already legal.

baldeagle wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Case 1:
Verbal argument between a CHLer and another person. CHLer removes a his concealment to "get ready for a fight". That is display calculated to alarm.

Yes, but depending upon the circumstances it could be justified under the Penal Code 9 statutes.

Beiruty wrote:Case 2:
At a BBQ, in private residence back yard, I do open carry my BBQ pistol in a holster. After September 1st 2013, it is legal.

It was already legal.

Case #2 was technically not legal if you are not on your premises or premises under your control. The host could have open carried but not his guests.

Beiruty wrote:Case 1:
Verbal argument between a CHLer and another person. CHLer removes a his concealment to "get ready for a fight". That is display calculated to alarm.
Case 2:
At a BBQ, in private residence back yard, I do open carry my BBQ pistol in a holster. After September 1st 2013, it is legal.

The "calculated to cause alarm" phrase was deleted from the Bill as passed. That was done because it was correctly argued that SB299 would have 1) created open-carry; and 2) prosecutors would have had a very difficult time prosecuting anyone for a violation of TPC §46.035(a).

Chas.

So now, how is "plain sight" defined.
For example a guy was arrested in Midland/Odessa a while back because he was wearing a shoulder holster and a biker's vest that allowed the gun to be visible on occasions when extending his arms, bending down and such. Would that be "in plain sight"?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Case 1:
Verbal argument between a CHLer and another person. CHLer removes a his concealment to "get ready for a fight". That is display calculated to alarm.
Case 2:
At a BBQ, in private residence back yard, I do open carry my BBQ pistol in a holster. After September 1st 2013, it is legal.

The "calculated to cause alarm" phrase was deleted from the Bill as passed. That was done because it was correctly argued that SB299 would have 1) created open-carry; and 2) prosecutors would have had a very difficult time prosecuting anyone for a violation of TPC §46.035(a).

Chas.

I was getting a little excited that that may have been left in. Then I saw where it was removed.

wrinkles wrote:So now, how is "plain sight" defined.
For example a guy was arrested in Midland/Odessa a while back because he was wearing a shoulder holster and a biker's vest that allowed the gun to be visible on occasions when extending his arms, bending down and such. Would that be "in plain sight"?

The bigger question is what constitutes "displaying?"

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

wrinkles wrote:So now, how is "plain sight" defined.
For example a guy was arrested in Midland/Odessa a while back because he was wearing a shoulder holster and a biker's vest that allowed the gun to be visible on occasions when extending his arms, bending down and such. Would that be "in plain sight"?

The bigger question is what constitutes "displaying?"

Chas.

Doh!!!

Wearing in a holster does not sound like displaying to me. Then again, I can be a little thick headed at times.

All what we need is the following 3 words after Displaying, " in a threatening manner"
And add to definition, a holstered handgun is a not considered a "display in a threatening manner"

Voila, open carry is legal.

I would venture to guess. If I lift my shirt to show my weapon that is displaying, but if the wind blows and it presses the shirt against my weapon enough to make the outline visible that is not displaying or blows it up so it is fully unconcealed it that is not displaying.

What say you well this is Texas so what say yall?