TexasCHLforum.com

"calculated to cause alarm" replaced "intentionally fails to conceal" in TPC 46.035. This is a very good thing for us. Yes, "calculated to cause alarm" is subjective and as such would have to pass the so-called reasonable man test. But the subjectivity runs both ways. It can be strictly interpreted by an overzealous LEO and/or ADA, but it can also be given a very lenient interpretation by the sympathetic LEO/ADA. Specifically defining the term would put police & the courts in the same position that zero-tolerance laws do - they remove common sense from the equation.

Besides all that, the display of a weapon is legally justified under the use of force & use of deadly force statutes. So if you keep to the 'concealed is concealed' mantra, unless or until there is an actual justifiable need for your weapon, there shouldn't be any problem.

I think there's an easy way to look at this.

If you, having a CHL, were to observe a person carrying a firearm be it a handgun or rifle openly in a shopping mall, would you seek cover, push your wife into the nearest store and be reaching for your weapon "just in case?"

If so, you were alarmed.

if you were in the mall and a person bend over to grab some socks from a lower shelf and you saw the grip of a pistol in a IWB holster briefly, would you have the same reaction?

MeMelYup wrote:What is the deffinition of "in a manner calculated to alarm?" I haven't been able to find one.

It's whatever the arresting officer says it is.
Kinda like "disturbing the peace" and "intoxication" as related to non-vehicle offenses.
As long as we have those 3, expect that officers can arrest at will.

Two things:

1. The statute does not make it an offense if someone IS ALARMED. The offense is if you carried the gun in a manner calculated to alarm, in other words you decided to carry your gun in such a way that you believed it would cause alarm.

So the "what would a CHL do if he saw a man with a rifle" example doesn't quite cut it

2. Back to "resisting arrest" discussion with LSUTiger. Suggest you spend some time re-reading 9.31 Self-Defense of the Penal Code:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

This is why I found all those quotes, just under a section basically claiming an arrest under 42.01 (a)(8) for long gun open carry was unlawful, so concerning. Even IF such an arrest is unlawful, resisting even an unlawful arrest is illegal.

I just realized something. Every time a politician or police chief holds up a scary-lookng gun or shows off a table full of confiscated guns to make a point of how dangerous it is, it is calculated to alarm.

MasterOfNone wrote:I just realized something. Every time a politician or police chief holds up a scary-lookng gun or shows off a table full of confiscated guns to make a point of how dangerous it is, it is calculated to alarm.

The only difference is that when the politicians or chiefs hold them up the media morons don't go running away screaming. They are spellbound.

Anygunanywhere

MasterOfNone wrote:I just realized something. Every time a politician or police chief holds up a scary-lookng gun or shows off a table full of confiscated guns to make a point of how dangerous it is, it is calculated to alarm.

Alarm as a propaganda tool is different. And those stunts are really only designed to reinforce the idea that those evil baby killing machinations of death & destruction are safe in the hands of authority.

And the fact that a different set of rules apply to LEOs.

LSUTiger sorry are you saying there is a right to resist police officers? I'm a bit confused by your post.

The reason I asked the aforementioned question is; To me a person walking through a mall or anywhere with a holstered firearm (rifle or handgun), treating it like it is part of his/her clothing is not calculating to cause alarm. A person walking around with a firearm in the high or low ready position, or that keeps grasping it, is calculating to cause alarm. Then there is the person that intentionally slings a firearm oner their shoulder with the thought of go over here and stir the pot a little, is calculating to cause alarm.
I like the explanations so far as it is material for contemplation.

MasterOfNone wrote:I just realized something. Every time a politician or police chief holds up a scary-lookng gun or shows off a table full of confiscated guns to make a point of how dangerous it is, it is calculated to alarm.

They're also more dangerous to America than the usual AWG the antis arrest for having a slung or holstered gun.

anygunanywhere wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:I just realized something. Every time a politician or police chief holds up a scary-lookng gun or shows off a table full of confiscated guns to make a point of how dangerous it is, it is calculated to alarm.

The only difference is that when the politicians or chiefs hold them up the media morons don't go running away screaming. They are spellbound.

Anygunanywhere

You may have nicely demonstrated what "calculated to alarm" means, Anygun. From the posts I have read here I suspect that the correspondents all really know what it means, but some are reluctant to admit that, and may have generated imaginary horribles, perhaps to just stir the pot a bit.

Jim

MeMelYup wrote:The reason I asked the aforementioned question is; To me a person walking through a mall or anywhere with a holstered firearm (rifle or handgun), treating it like it is part of his/her clothing is not calculating to cause alarm. A person walking around with a firearm in the high or low ready position, or that keeps grasping it, is calculating to cause alarm. Then there is the person that intentionally slings a firearm oner their shoulder with the thought of go over here and stir the pot a little, is calculating to cause alarm.
I like the explanations so far as it is material for contemplation.

A concealed handgun is not meant to cause alarm. All of the other items you mentioned, when openly carried, are. Especially in a setting where seeing them is out of place. To suggest otherwise denies reality. To argue that they SHOULD NOT is the tactic that my 18mo old son is now learning to employ - with equal success.

Alarm - cause (someone) to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger. synonyms: frighten, scare, panic, unnerve, distress, agitate, upset, disconcert, shock, dismay, disturb

What brings me to the point of being alarmed is different than in others. Firearms carried in any manner other than concealed do not casue me to be alarmed. Seeing an openly carried long gun would not necessarily cause me to be alarmed. It will probably raise my level of awareness or concern but not necessarily alarm me. Last night my neighbor came over and knocked on my door to show me his recent shotgun purchase. I opened the door, saw him and his shotgun and it did not bother me one bit. I am used to being around firearms all the time.

This "calculated to cause alarm" is difficult to actually define and prove, at least in my world, because some people are flat out scared of their own shadow. To use this terminology as the basis for a law restricting the carrying of firearms is, in my opinion, absurd.

We take it much too seriously when people are "offended". People have no right to not be offended. Causing someone to be alarmed is not necessarily a bad thing. Some people are easily offended, some are easily alarmed. Neither should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Alarm - cause (someone) to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger. synonyms: frighten, scare, panic, unnerve, distress, agitate, upset, disconcert, shock, dismay, disturb

What brings me to the point of being alarmed is different than in others. Firearms carried in any manner other than concealed do not casue me to be alarmed. Seeing an openly carried long gun would not necessarily cause me to be alarmed. It will probably raise my level of awareness or concern but not necessarily alarm me. Last night my neighbor came over and knocked on my door to show me his recent shotgun purchase. I opened the door, saw him and his shotgun and it did not bother me one bit. I am used to being around firearms all the time.

This "calculated to cause alarm" is difficult to actually define and prove, at least in my world, because some people are flat out scared of their own shadow. To use this terminology as the basis for a law restricting the carrying of firearms is, in my opinion, absurd.

We take it much too seriously when people are "offended". People have no right to not be offended. Causing someone to be alarmed is not necessarily a bad thing. Some people are easily offended, some are easily alarmed. Neither should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere