• 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.

Question regarding OC/CC in Texas

Humanphibian

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
8
Location
, ,
imported post

Please forgive my ignorance on the OC subject, but I have been a CHL holder for over a decade now. I have a question regarding "OC" and its actual legal definition (or at least what is being proposed by the bill being drafted).

I understand the arguments that OC is a basic right, that 44 other states allow it, and that CC in the TX heat and humidity is hard on equipment and body.

What I would like to know is how the proposed OC rulas and CC rules will blend so to speak. Say for example if I am wearing jeans and a polo type shirt. If I have my shirt tail untucked and an OWB holster on that CAN be discerned as a handgun by a reasonable person, yet the gun is actually covered....would this be a violation of CC law,...or OC law?

Is it possible to write legislation that would seamlessly meld the two together? Would it be feasable to enact something along the lines of a "Defensive Handgun Permit" that would allow handgun carry in whatever manner the bearer sees fit?

just bouncin stuff around in my head....feel free to smack it back my way
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
imported post

The goal is to have unlicensed OC, so even if you print, there is no crime commited. Right now, with a CHL, printing can get you thrown in jail, your gun taken, and license revoked.
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
imported post

The 'OC' bill does not necessarily carry with it any changes to the current 'CC' law that I could tell, and thus I have been wondering about 'printing' when CCing. Would that still be against the 'CC' rules? Or is that one of those that is going to end up being determined in a courtroom?
And also the 'partially' concealed... Is it only ok to be partially concealed (shirt tail or jacket covering top of gun) if you have a CCP or would that be a no no alltogether?
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

Gator5713 wrote:
The 'OC' bill does not necessarily carry with it any changes to the current 'CC' law that I could tell, and thus I have been wondering about 'printing' when CCing.  Would that still be against the 'CC' rules?  Or is that one of those that is going to end up being determined in a courtroom?
And also the 'partially' concealed...  Is it only ok to be partially concealed (shirt tail or jacket covering top of gun) if you have a CCP or would that be a no no alltogether?

Huh? That doesn't make sense. If open carry is legalized (in accordance with the restoration bill,) then Texans with CCWs could carry any way they want - concealed or open, printing or not printing, half concealed/half exposed.
 

ELK-Tex

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
22
Location
Pittsburg, Texas, USA
imported post

OC has always been legal in VA since well I guess forever, passing CC was resisted but passed in 2004. Therefore, got your CC VA then in winter snow with your coat on your legal take it off at the restaurant and you’re still legal. This is not convoluted. Texans are so indoctrinated that OC being illegal is normal... it isn't… it is abnormal. Under the 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment bearing arms means slinging your rifle over your shoulder and sticking your pistol in your belt then going on your way. You are over thinking this. :banghead:The Texas legislature has given itself power it does nothave and that is the prevention of any Texan to bear arms normallyfor self-defense, a basic human right.
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
imported post

I guess it seems a matter of semantics to me. On the surface it would only seem logical that OC being legal would trump the very specific stipulations on CC, however, without removing those stipulations the law could still be interpreted literally meaning that IF you were carrying concealed, the gun must be completely concealed.
I may very well be over thinking, but just something that I noticed and thought to bring to light. I have seen too many laws interpreted literally by an LEO on site simply to 'make a point' that were later battled and won/lost in the courtroom.
 

like_the_roman

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
293
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

Gator5713 wrote:
I guess it seems a matter of semantics to me.  On the surface it would only seem logical that OC being legal would trump the very specific stipulations on CC, however, without removing those stipulations the law could still be interpreted literally meaning that IF you were carrying concealed, the gun must be completely concealed.

This has never been the case in the 40+ states where open carry and concealed carry exist side by side.

I may very well be over thinking, but just something that I noticed and thought to bring to light.I have seen too many laws interpreted literally by an LEO on site simply to 'make a point' that were later battled and won/lost in the courtroom.

I don't see Texans being that picayunish when it comes to lifting the prohibition on open carry.
 

Humanphibian

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
8
Location
, ,
imported post

OK....I'll be the first to stand at the head of the class and say..."I had to look that one up"

pic·a·yune
play_w2("P0284700")


(p
ibreve.gif
k
lprime.gif
schwa.gif
-y
oomacr.gif
n
prime.gif
)

adj.
1. Of little value or importance; paltry. See Synonyms at trivial.
2. Petty; mean.
n.
1. A Spanish-American half-real piece formerly used in parts of the southern United States.
2. A five-cent piece.
3. Something of very little value; a trifle: not worth a picayune.


[align=left]

pic
lprime.gif
a·yun
prime.gif
ish
adj.[/align]
 

ELK-Tex

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
22
Location
Pittsburg, Texas, USA
imported post

Please allow me to clarify... the point I was trying to make is even if the completely concealed laws stay in place... if for instance you "completely" remove the "cover" you would still be legal with OC.

Picayune... my Dad had a tool fixed on an axe handle was 5 or 6 inches long with a small hook on the end. Perfect for rolling firewood. He called it a picayune. When working in the UP of Michigan they had the same tool and called it the same thing. I had never heard the other definition before. Thanks for expanding my horizon. :cool:
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

TGC 411.171(3) - "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
This definition would hold even if OC became legal. At law, a gun is concealed or not concealed; therefore anything not meeting this description is open carry. Anything from identifiable printing to a half-exposed gun to a gun hanging way out in the open is OC.

CC and OC will likely merge by first and foremost making it not a crime to fail to conceal. If OC is legal, then anything not considered "brandishing" (not a term used in Texas law, but could be synonymous with "carry of a firearm in a manner calculated to alarm") is legal, from your shirttail riding up to you tucking behind the holster.

Some things that would differentiate the two in practice: current bills I've seen make no mention of changes to the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Unlicensed open carry would be a felony in any establishment licensed by the TABC to sell alcohol, whether at retail or by the drink. However, CHL holders would be able to OC up to the door, then conceal the weapon and walk in to any establishment except a bar.

Another difference is that "gun-free zone" laws like 30.06 refer only to concealed carry; it's the only thing allowed, so you don't need special restrictions on an action that's illegal in the general case. If 46.02 no longer applied to OC of a handgun, the only statement carrying force of law is a verbal request to leave under 30.05. 30.06 is quite specifically tailored to CHL holders and does not apply to OC at all. Any other "No weapons" signs have never carried force of law in Texas; you weren't trespassing when you went armed in public, you were unlawfully carrying a weapon which was bad enough.On top of that, no weapons signs are both unlikely to come to the attention of a person, and therefore are not effective notice, and also unenforceable because a no trespassing sign applies in general; only authorized personnel, when authorized personnel are a miniscule minority.A no trespassing sign cannot keep out people named Larry; it similarly cannot keep out gun owners.
 

AEA

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
3
Location
, Texas, USA
imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:
Right now, with a CHL, printing can get you thrown in jail, your gun taken, and license revoked.
TOTALLY UNTRUE!

"Intentional Failure to Conceal" will get those actions taken,.....NOT un-intentional printing.
Get your facts right before spouting this kind of stuff off!:banghead:
 

SA-TX

Centurion
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
275
Location
Ellis County, Texas, USA
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
Some things that would differentiate the two in practice: current bills I've seen make no mention of changes to the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Unlicensed open carry would be a felony in any establishment licensed by the TABC to sell alcohol, whether at retail or by the drink. However, CHL holders would be able to OC up to the door, then conceal the weapon and walk in to any establishment except a bar.


Citation please on unlicensed open carry being a felony for places licensed by TABC. I haven't been able to find any such provision in the alcohol beveragecode nor the penal code. It is true that theUnlawful Carry of a Handgun by a License Holdersection of the penal code(46.035) makes carry there a felony but that is CHL-specific. Aside from provisions that impose duties on TABC licensees, I can't find any provisions in the ABC that imposes criminal liability of any type on the carrier.
 

SA-TX

Centurion
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
275
Location
Ellis County, Texas, USA
imported post

AEA wrote:
PrayingForWar wrote:
Right now, with a CHL, printing can get you thrown in jail, your gun taken, and license revoked.
TOTALLY UNTRUE!

"Intentional Failure to Conceal" will get those actions taken,.....NOT un-intentional printing.
Get your facts right before spouting this kind of stuff off!:banghead:

+1! I see this said frequently :(. Thank you for the correction. I was going to post one if you hadn't.

There have been many reports of CHL holders who have accidentally revealed their weapon (wind blowing their jacket open, reaching up to get something on a shelf and theirshirt riding up, etc.) and the police response has been 1) detained, 2) show CHL, 3) maybe a lecture about better concealment. I'm not familiar with ANY case where an arrest has taken place much less where a charge has been filed and a conviction sustained after the whole legal process has occurred.

As restrictive as Texas law is, let's be accurate about it and not discourage CHL-holders from carrying based on unnecessary fears of printing and arrest.
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

§ 61.11. WARNING SIGN REQUIRED. (a) Each holder of a
license who is not otherwise required to display a sign under
Section 411.204, Government Code, shall display in a prominent
place on the license holder's premises a sign giving notice that it
is unlawful for a person to carrya weaponon the premises unless
the weaponis a concealed handgun of the same category the person is
licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

(b) The sign must be at least 6 inches high and 14 inches
wide, must appear in contrasting colors, and shall be displayed in a
conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. The commission or
administrator may require the holder of the license to also display
the sign in a language other than English if it can be observed or
determined that a substantial portion of the expected customers
speak the other language as their familiar language.
 

SA-TX

Centurion
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
275
Location
Ellis County, Texas, USA
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
§ 61.11. WARNING SIGN REQUIRED. (a) Each holder of a
license who is not otherwise required to display a sign under
Section 411.204, Government Code, shall display in a prominent
place on the license holder's premises a sign giving notice that it
is unlawful for a person to carrya weaponon the premises unless
the weaponis a concealed handgun of the same category the person is
licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

(b) The sign must be at least 6 inches high and 14 inches
wide, must appear in contrasting colors, and shall be displayed in a
conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. The commission or
administrator may require the holder of the license to also display
the sign in a language other than English if it can be observed or
determined that a substantial portion of the expected customers
speak the other language as their familiar language.
True, this is a requirement for signage (as I mentioned, an obligation on the licensee) that says what you highlighted. The real question is what law makes it "unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless ...".
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

SA-TX wrote:
True, this is a requirement for signage (as I mentioned, an obligation on the licensee) that says what you highlighted. The real question is what law makes it "unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless ...".


You'reright. Other than the provisions of the signage itself, I can find no law in the Penal Code or AB Code that actually prohibits the action and prescribes a punishment :?. Doesn't mean it can't exist, but it means there's something missing from the online Statutes.

You could logically argue that a law requiring a business to notify patrons that an action is illegal does in fact make the act illegal.Actions such as trespassing require the person to have been given notice in order for it to actually be trespassing; this gives the person notice, and if they fail to heed it it is a crime.However the signagelaw does not prescribe a punishment for failure to heed the sign. The signs generally say it's a state jail felony ($10,000 fine and 6 months imprisonment) but I cannot find any provision specifically making it so. Moreover, trespassing (which I'd think would be the most applicable section)is never a state jail felony even if the trespasser has a weapon; the most it can be is a Class A misdemeanor. Yet another wonderful quirk of Texas State law.

You may be right that ignoring the sign is totally unenforceable. However, I would not want to be the test case just in case there is some suchprovision buried deep in the Statutes. If nothing else, you are told that entry with a weapon is forbidden; that is notice sufficient to put you in violation of 30.05, felony or not.
 

Liko81

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
496
Location
Dallas, TX, ,
imported post

STOP THE PRESSES!

... I found it :). Right there in front of me, in the most oft-read (by gun owners)section of the Penal Code. TPC 46.02 states that it isillegal tocarry a handgun, exceptconcealed while holding a valid CHL. It says other things, but this is what's relevant.Now take a look at subsectionC:
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or
issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
There you are. It is illegal to carry a gun, and normally a Class A misdemeanor, but if you do so on the grounds of a business licensed to sell alcohol you are a felon. However, none of this applies to the owner of that property or to a CHL holder. According to the letter of the law, you are also not prohibited from carrying a long gun into a liquor store, and if Mike's OC bill becomes law it will no longer be an offense to OC a handgun into an alcohol-selling business as it will only apply to carry of a concealed handgun.
 

Gator5713

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
591
Location
Aggieland, Texas, USA
imported post

Liko81: "This definition would hold even if OC became legal. At law, a gun is concealed or not concealed; therefore anything not meeting this description is open carry. Anything from identifiable printing to a half-exposed gun to a gun hanging way out in the open is OC."

I do not believe that 'identifiable printing' would qualify as legal OC. I also do not thing that accidental (and thus temporary) printing or exposure will you much more than a lecture, but, if you are CCing, it needs to be Concealed, if you are OCing it needs to be open. I believe that some (many?) of the states have a definition of what is 'open' and how much can be 'concealed' IE: the end of a clip poking through your shirt is not 'open' as it is not easily and readily identifiable....
I believe that 'intent' will likely become the argueing point of that; as in, did you 'Intend' to carry Open or Concealed. The set of rules that you would be required to follow would be based on that intent.
That is not to say that you couldn't switch from one to the other at will so long as you possess a CHL. IE: Holster on your belt (OC) its cold so you put on a jacket and it covers (CC)...
 

timsatx

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
2
Location
, ,
imported post

Liko81 wrote:
§ 61.11. WARNING SIGN REQUIRED. (a) Each holder of a
license who is not otherwise required to display a sign under
Section 411.204, Government Code, shall display in a prominent
place on the license holder's premises a sign giving notice that it
is unlawful for a person to carrya weaponon the premises unless
the weaponis a concealed handgun of the same category the person is
licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

(b) The sign must be at least 6 inches high and 14 inches
wide, must appear in contrasting colors, and shall be displayed in a
conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public. The commission or
administrator may require the holder of the license to also display
the sign in a language other than English if it can be observed or
determined that a substantial portion of the expected customers
speak the other language as their familiar language.
I think the law to pay special attention to with regards to CC and signage is in the Texas Penal Code commonly referred to as 30.06. It says:

Code:
§ 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED 
HANDGUN.  (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license 
holder:
(1)  carries a handgun under the authority of 
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another 
without effective consent;  and
(2)  received notice that:                                                    
(A)  entry on the property by a license holder 
with a concealed handgun was forbidden;  or
(B)  remaining on the property with a concealed 
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b)  For purposes of this section, a person receives notice 
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to 
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written 
communication.
(c)  In this section:                                                          
(1)  "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 
30.05(b).                  
(2)  "License holder" has the meaning assigned by 
Section 46.035(f).        
(3)  "Written communication" means:                                           
(A)  a card or other document on which is written 
language identical to the following:  "Pursuant to Section 30.06, 
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed 
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, 
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this 
property with a concealed handgun";  or
(B)  a sign posted on the property that:                                     
(i)  includes the language described by 
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii)  appears in contrasting colors with 
block letters at least one inch in height;  and
(iii)  is displayed in a conspicuous manner 
clearly visible to the public.
(d)  An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.                   
(e)  It is an exception to the application of this section 
that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is 
owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or 
other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying 
the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
A sign of this type would be a very large sign, a minimum of ~24" x 24". For whatever reason the editing for changing colors or text size doesn't seem to be working, therefore here is the main part of the code that I was trying to highlight:

(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height
 
Top