• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Sb-299

honkytonkrolltide

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
10
Location
Converse, Texas
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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:

jordanmills

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pearland, TX
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.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
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.
 

jordanmills

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
101
Location
Pearland, TX
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.
 

()pen(arry

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
735
Location
Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
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:

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:

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
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 ?
 
Top