Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Sb-299

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Alvin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    42

    Sb-299


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Converse, Texas
    Posts
    10
    If I'm understanding it correctly, it means "printing" wouldn't be a criminal offense. If someone noticed your "concealed" handgun, you'd be okay as long as you weren't causing alarm, ie waving it around yelling yahoooo! Just my 2 cents.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Elgin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,512
    Why does he strike 46.035(h)?

    (h)It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
    the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
    the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
    justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.
    This says that it is a defense to prosecution if you pull your weapon (without discharging it) on someone to stop them from committing a crime. Without this, if you pull your weapon, you better shoot the bad guy.
    Last edited by rodbender; 02-01-2013 at 09:18 AM.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    46
    It's good and bad. Good in that it changes the restriction on display from intentional failure to conceal to intentional display in public in a manner calculated to alarm. It's the same standard as long arms which in the opinion of most does not prohibit open carry of such. IMO it seems like stealth open carry for CHL holders.

    On the other hand, it changes (h) to remove a defense in situations where you could use deadly force. If I'm drawing on someone who is about to need shooting, you bet your shiny white a$$ that I intend to alarm them. It's arguably covered by 9.04 with " The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter." That seems to me that you're excluded from any criminal liability resulting from using threat of force (e.g. pulling a gun on someone) at any time you'd be justified in using the force you're threatening with. You may say it applies only to situations described in chapter 9, but chapter 9 has been used to exclude criminal liability under chapter 22 (assaultive offenses).

    So I think the removal of (h) serves only to simplify the law and make the same wide standard apply to those blessed by the benevolent big government with a license to exercise their second amendment rights as applies to everyone else who is only blessed by the constitution.

    In short, while I wait for professional legal analysis, SB299 has my tentative support.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D, ,
    Posts
    523

    Sb-299

    I have not read carefully, but if they make carrying legal, and opposed to having a permit a defense to prosecution, it's a win. Right now, IIRC, it's is still technically illegal to carry, but the CHL provides an affirmative defense.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    I have not read carefully, but if they make carrying legal, and opposed to having a permit a defense to prosecution, it's a win. Right now, IIRC, it's is still technically illegal to carry, but the CHL provides an affirmative defense.
    It's not a defense, affirmative or otherwise. It's an exception of applicability. If it were a defense, you could be arrested and would be required to prove your defense in court. With an exception, you're not subject to arrest.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by jordanmills View Post
    It's not a defense, affirmative or otherwise. It's an exception of applicability. If it were a defense, you could be arrested and would be required to prove your defense in court. With an exception, you're not subject to arrest.
    This is a dangerously false mindset. As I've posted before:

    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    There seems to be a fundamental disconnect in perception among many people on these forums.

    What is legal is what council can convince a judge and/or jury is legal.

    What is arrestable is everything. Everything. And if you think there's meaningful sanction against an officer who arrests falsely, the Scientologists are looking for more adherents.

    What should be discussed, when someone wants to know if it's okay to do something, is less what standing law declares legal or illegal, and more what is or isn't prone to get you arrested, no matter the legality. Court-adjudicated legality is a concern for those who can afford legal bills. Arrest likelihood is what most of us are interested in.
    EDIT: Yeah, I know I misspelled "counsel" in the original post.
    Last edited by ()pen(arry; 02-08-2013 at 01:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    This is a dangerously false mindset. As I've posted before:



    EDIT: Yeah, I know I misspelled "counsel" in the original post.
    I was talking about the law, not practical abuse by law enforcement.

  9. #9
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870
    HB 700 (Oklahoma style) should pass this session - but if it hits a snag SB 299 is a good step in the right direction.

    Both measures provide State preemption (with a CHL) .

    A holstered handgun is the equivalent of a spare tire attached to its rack just in case it is ever needed.

    How many people(other than criminals) feel "alarmed" when they observe a LEO with a holstered sidearm ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •