TexasCHLforum.com

Not unless they're a peace officer or a magistrate. You can lie all you want to anyone else, which is what I'll do if ever asked.

EDIT: I hadn't read the other thread, but I just got to the point that brought this up. If the woman behind the counter had a gun, she wouldn't (necessarily) be carrying under her CHL license. If the property is under her control, she can carry concealed, carry open, or carry a shotgun out in the open for that matter without regard to a CHL. IF she had a CHL and was carrying, I don't know if that would matter or not, as I am not a lawyer. As far as Joe on the street, although news to me, it looks like admitting you are carrying is a violation.

Glockamolie wrote:As far as Joe on the street, although news to me, it looks like admitting you are carrying is a violation.

nope.

Care to elaborat tx???

What justification can you offer to support your "nope"?
Many people would like to know the answer to this disclosure question.

IANAL - but I as I read it - failure to conceal refers to the weapon itself, in a visual sense.

Stating you do not have a weapon, when you do, is concealment. Unless you lie to a LEO, I think you're good to go.

*Using logic here, so who knows where it will get me*

Here is a quote from my post in a related thread:

Sgt Star Riddle, TxDPS Firearms Instructor and CHL Instructor on a comment she made in a class to CHL instructors on verbally disclosing:

"The license was designed to have people carry to protect themselves or others, not to brag about the fact they have a gun….. At no time did I say it was unlawful to tell someone they are carrying…"

txinvestigator wrote:

Glockamolie wrote:As far as Joe on the street, although news to me, it looks like admitting you are carrying is a violation.

nope.

txinvestigator - I STAND CORRECTED... - sorry for mis-speaking a point...

S&W6946 wrote:Here is a quote from my post in a related thread:

Sgt Star Riddle, TxDPS Firearms Instructor and CHL Instructor on a comment she made in a class to CHL instructors on verbally disclosing:

"The license was designed to have people carry to protect themselves or others, not to brag about the fact they have a gun….. At no time did I say it was unlawful to tell someone they are carrying…"

I hate to sound like a lawyer, but this is not the same as saying verbal disclosure is legal.

Chas.

While discussing in another thread, sparx brings up:

I would actually think that "concealed" means "hidden" and not in open view, not necessarily "secret." We "conceal" a lot of our body parts with clothes, but everyone knows what those body parts are.

Which - of course makes logical sense... THEN to add from the PC Definition:

"Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

(emphasis mine)

I think the discussion becomes quite clear to me...

A verbal tip of the hat does NOT violate either of these two conditions...

I am not suggesting anyone advertise, but I can see where a verbal nod will still allow total concealment...

evil_smurf wrote:Chas:

huh? "At no time did I say that telling someone you are carrying" does sound an awful lot like saying verbal disclosure IS legal. I can say that my instructor deffinetly made it clear that verbal disclosure is legal, such as BG threatens you, you threaten him back.


So what is the actual correct answer to this? Can I or can I not tell someone I am carrying a concealed handgun?

Merely noting that you didn't state that an act was illegal is not tantamount to saying it is legal. We have all been in a situation where we reported to have held a particular opinion, and responded “I didn’t say that� only to have someone say, “then you must believe the opposit.� It may well be that Sgt. Riddle does not know or have an opinion whether verbal disclosure is legal or not. That's certainly the position I'm in. I have a personal opinion, but if asked as an attorney I'd have to honestly "I don't know." As a DPS Sgt. and a driving force behind the CHL program, she may feel the same way, then again she may not.

Based upon Sgt. Riddle's email to S&W, I may well have read more into her answer to the gentleman's question than was warranted. Her response did not include the explanation and example included in her email so we didn't have the benefit of that additional information. All we had in class was a question as to whether it was illegal to tell someone you have a handgun and the response was "if you tell, then it's no longer concealed," or words substantially similar. I believe it was reasonable to conclude from that exchange that verbal disclosure constitutes an intentional failure to conceal, though it not appears that conclusion was in error.

I regret even mentioning Sgt. Riddle's answer to a specific question. It has led to a clarification as well as attempts to dissect her meaning beyond the face value of her statement. This is unfair to her and it's entirely my fault for getting it started.

I've already stated it is my opinion that verbal disclosure isn't illegal, but many others disagree, including former Rep. Ron Wilson, a co-author of the House version of SB60. But let me pose this scenario: If verbal disclosure that you have a handgun does not constitute a voluntary failure to disclose, then I can walk down the street saying to everyone I pass, "excuse me sir/madam, I have a handgun under my coat." Sure, this is an extreme example, but where is the line drawn between a store clerk answering a perfect stranger's question as to whether she has a gun, and my hypothetical of politely telling everyone you meet that you have a gun?

As to verbal disclosure in response to a threat from another person, that is a special circumstance that delves into the threat of force under TPC. §9.04 and is not a casual disclosure.

Again, I offer my apologies for unfairly dragging Sgt. Riddle's name into this discussion. I have too much respect for her and the work she does to have put her in this position.

Regards,
Chas.

P.S. Sgt. Riddle's example of the CHL being arrested after having responded "yes" to a question as to whether he had a gun is excellent!

evil_smurf wrote:Okay, thank you for clearing that up.


Like I mentioned above in my earlier post I came to the same conclusion you did, that intentional verbal disclosure is probably prohibited.

No way.

Texas Government Code



Text
§411.171. Definitions.

In this subchapter:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a
reasonable person.


If I go to Kroger and see my buddy and he asked if I am carrying and I reply yes, I did not intentionally fail to conceal it. This seems real simple to me.

Course I am kinda simple minded.