And the lower end of the spectrum we find the 2A-challenged, and knee-jerk oriented guy, and the apparently equally 2A-challenged women he warned of the impending public safety "threat" that you & your son posed.
At the top of the patriot ladder -Kudos to a Texas LEO who not only resides in the real world, but also respects the laws that he has sworn to uphold. This is why I often express my sincere belief that once this handgun OC issue is freed up from it's 146 year old log-jam Texas may well rise to the top of the "Green State" class rather quickly.
What if as the deputy approached you he had observed your (hypothetically) holstered 1911's in addition to your rifles ? Since Chapter 46 of Texas Penal Code requires a CHL in order for "every citizen" in Texas to legally wear a holstered HG under such circumstances, and further requires that the HG must be concealed.... Brazos County - do we have a problem ?
I have a strong hunch that this particular LEO would have asked you if you had a CHL for the HG, inspected your CHL, handed it back while advising you that your CHL requires that you conceal the gun.
In response to which you might have been inclined to asked him - what is the point in concealing my HG, when I'm already openly holding an AR ? Then he would probably have said - " I know . It doesn't make much sense , but the law is the law. I don't make the law. I just have to enforce it."
Considering the fact that you & your son would have been notoriously armed with your openly displayed Kevlar-indifferent "assault rifles" -
"Lordy- Lordy , good golly Miss Molly" ! A HANDGUN !!!!!
I know - I'm having way too much fun playing with this exercise in search of logic. Before anyone assumes that I'm getting dangerously close to "messing with Texas" - I AM IN TEXAS at the moment, and I was a card-carrying "certified" Texan for 37 years before moving to Colorado, and I have held a CHL for 16 years.
A LOGIC CHECK LIST:
1. Texas law prohibits the habitual carry of a handgun without a CHL.
2. TX DPS will not issue a CHL to anyone behind on child support payments, student loan payments, or state taxes.
3. Such eligibility criteria would not pass SCOTUS scrutiny if it were applied in a similar fashion to suppress the exercise of any other constitutionally protected right. Since the affect of the Texas law (46.035a) prohibiting open carry of a handgun under the CHL is to suppress the 2A RIGHT as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Heller/McDonald - is not 46.035a constitutionally invalid ?
4. Currently handgun carry under authority of the Texas CHL does not constitute the exercise of a RIGHT under federal law due to the concealment mandate.
5. Since the only legal way "every citizen" in Texas can habitually carry this "quintessential, and preferred defensive weapon in case of confrontation - is under CHL authority - the SCOTUS must have gotten it all wrong in its Heller/McDonald decisions.
The SCOTUS said that the 2A guarantees to the people ( including "every citizen" in Texas) -THE RIGHT to carry a handgun - OPENLY, but NOT concealed- in case of confrontation.
I'll leave it at that for now.