TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've been asking you to identify one for all of us and you haven't done so because you can't. Your claim is bogus and I sincerely hope you keep saying it. You are destroying the credibility of your open-carry position. Constantly crying wolf like Sarah Brady does will do more to scuttle your open-carry campaign than will any outside opposition.

Chas.

You've been asking and I've been rebutting your claim that I need to provide you with such evidence. That's OK. You keep on repeating that ad nauseum.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've been asking you to identify one for all of us and you haven't done so because you can't. Your claim is bogus and I sincerely hope you keep saying it. You are destroying the credibility of your open-carry position. Constantly crying wolf like Sarah Brady does will do more to scuttle your open-carry campaign than will any outside opposition.

Chas.

You've been asking and I've been rebutting your claim that I need to provide you with such evidence. That's OK. You keep on repeating that ad nauseum.

I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've been asking you to identify one for all of us and you haven't done so because you can't. Your claim is bogus and I sincerely hope you keep saying it. You are destroying the credibility of your open-carry position. Constantly crying wolf like Sarah Brady does will do more to scuttle your open-carry campaign than will any outside opposition.

Chas.

You've been asking and I've been rebutting your claim that I need to provide you with such evidence. That's OK. You keep on repeating that ad nauseum.

Do you really not recognize the difference?

KC5AV wrote:

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've been asking you to identify one for all of us and you haven't done so because you can't. Your claim is bogus and I sincerely hope you keep saying it. You are destroying the credibility of your open-carry position. Constantly crying wolf like Sarah Brady does will do more to scuttle your open-carry campaign than will any outside opposition.

Chas.

You've been asking and I've been rebutting your claim that I need to provide you with such evidence. That's OK. You keep on repeating that ad nauseum.

Do you really not recognize the difference?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

Does that bicyclist in Fort Worth count?

he was arrested for evading arrest, not for failure to conceal. the UCW charge was tacked on, as well as the Riding a Bicycle without a Headlight at Night thing, too.

He wasn't intentionally open carry but he was charged with failing to conceal.

charged with, not arrested for.
it wasn't what gathered the ire of the police in the first place, as evidenced in that 6-page travesty, I mean thread....

jorge wrote:He wasn't intentionally open carry but he was charged with failing to conceal.

From the articles in the media, the butt of his Glock was protruding from a mesh pouch on his backpack. The police found this after they stopped him for the other infractions. Now, some folks would say the butt of the gun doesn't constitute failure to conceal and most folks wouldn't know what it was, but I beg to differ. There are too many cop shows on TV with gun butts sticking out of the bad guys pants or out of a cops holster and everyone has seen these shows. I think about ANYONE including a 5 year old would be able to tell what it was.

So, IMO, unless the mesh on the pouch was VERY tightly woven and concealed the gun properly AND when he tossed the pack down on the ground the gun butt came out, then he was intentionally failing to conceal by having the butt protruding out. No different than an IWB holster and no cover garment.

Keith B wrote:So, IMO, unless the mesh on the pouch was VERY tightly woven and concealed the gun properly AND when he tossed the pack down on the ground the gun butt came out, then he was intentionally failing to conceal by having the butt protruding out. No different than an IWB holster and no cover garment.

Or the wind blowing it up?

jorge wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

Does that bicyclist in Fort Worth count?

I wouldn't think so. He was searched incident to arrest after fleeing from the officers.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jorge wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

Does that bicyclist in Fort Worth count?

I wouldn't think so. He was searched incident to arrest after fleeing from the officers.

Chas.

So, in other words Charles, he was charged with failure to conceal in a case currently posted with significant discussion on your own forum where you are claiming there are no such cases. Why don't you just admit again that since these cases aren't reported unless they're appealed, neither you nor I can say with any confidence whether there are or are not any such cases? You've made you're point that it's a low priority issue and the probability of an actual arrest is a weak argument for open carry. I don't disagree with that.

Still, that you are unaware of harassment, arrests, charges or convictions under this law doesn't mean it has not or will not happen. Whether this law is forever completely ignored by the police, it's wrong that the law exists on the books, and for that reason alone, I support lobbying the legislature to repeal it.

I'll give you the last word.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jorge wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I should just stop responding, but I can't.

Can you document even one arrest or prosecution for unintentional failure to conceal?

Chas.

Does that bicyclist in Fort Worth count?

I wouldn't think so. He was searched incident to arrest after fleeing from the officers.

Chas.

So, in other words Charles, he was charged with failure to conceal in a case currently posted with significant discussion on your own forum where you are claiming there are no such cases. Why don't you just admit again that since these cases aren't reported unless they're appealed, neither you nor I can say with any confidence whether there are or are not any such cases? You've made you're point that it's a low priority issue and the probability of an actual arrest is a weak argument for open carry. I don't disagree with that.

Still, that you are unaware of harassment, arrests, charges or convictions under this law doesn't mean it has not or will not happen. Whether this law is forever completely ignored by the police, it's wrong that the law exists on the books, and for that reason alone, I support lobbying the legislature to repeal it.

I'll give you the last word.

No, he was arrested because he ignored a lawful order of a peace officer to stop, then he attempted to evade. The failure to conceal charge was tacked on to teach him a lesson. He will never be convicted of "intentional failure to conceal" and he would never have been arrested if he had stopped when order to do so. Once you run, they are going to hit you with every conceivable charge.

The simple fact is you post on this board and others that open-carry is necessary to prevent being arrested for unintentional failure to conceal and that is false. You cannot document a single case, not one, not ever, yet you cannot bring yourself to admit that simple fact. You play word games, post insulting statements, and continue to fight windmills. Keep it up sport, this approach will doom open-carry in Texas.

Chas.

In fact there are several incidents some posted here where Officers have spotted a Firearm showing, pointed in out to the person, and that was that.

CompVest wrote:In fact there are several incidents some posted here where Officers have spotted a Firearm showing, pointed in out to the person, and that was that.

There you go using facts and logic again. This is the internet. Cut that stuff out