SANDCREEK
Regular Member
imported post
I just returned from a visit to the Arlington, Tx area 3 days ago. I contracted for a home while there- contract pending & scheduled to close the end of the month.
While there the OC option was excercised with some stressing of the "exception envelope" ["traveling", in direct route to my vehicle, and on premises under my control]. The envelope was briefly "torn" on several occassions & cautiously disregarded the farther into rural West Texas and the Panhandle that I traveled.The Texas " handgun law" is certainly alawyer'sincome stimulous plan, because no one really understands it.
It seems , at least on the surface, that the failure to conceal issue only applies to CHL holders. Interestingly the rest of the law makes no distinction between concealed or displayed - simply classifies possession of a handgun as criminal conduct except under specified circumstances. It's obvious [ to me] that the intent of the law Title 10 [46.02] was to address WEAPONS being carried in a manner intended to faciltate criminal purpose as opposed to self defense.
So a non-CHL OC'er is not subject to "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to conceal" prosecution when wearing a handgun in plain view. Further, if aperson licensed under authority of Subchapter H, chapter 411 is wearing a handgun in plain view to begin with -absent of intent or attempt to conceal - nogrounds exist for a charge relating to "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to conceal", because the weapon was worn pursuant to the authority of the Texas Constitution.Obviously this is my legal interpretation and should not be relied upon as professional legal counsel - just offerred up for thought. Perhaps
better not to have a Texas CHL for the time being.
What amazes me is that apparently law enforcement has slowly evolved in it's "enforcement" approach to the "handgun laws" in Texas. The law has been on the books as I understand it since 1871. I guess Wyatt Earp & Johnny Ringo, weren'taware that they were in violation of this UCW law when they were involved in a shooting incident outsidethat saloon on Concho St in San Angelo during the 1880's.[Not to be confused with the OK Corralaffair]
Actually - I suspect that no one outside of the Austin City Limits , Dallas, & Houston even knew it was on the books - or at least had the common sense to recognize that it was directed at CRIMINALS......[..."with a view to prevent crime ."]
I respect the determination of those who wish to bring this to a head - and not tippy-toe around the tulips.Urban areas such as DFW Metroplex would not be my choice for challenging 46.02. Community values are a fair measure of law enforcement and jury disposition. DFW suffers from crime problems that simply don't thrive in rural communities, as well as "big city" arrogance.
From what I hear the remedy is close at hand. The fact still remains that what is needed is thousands of Texans with the cautious determination to begin to press against what consist of a veryweakbarricade to free excercise of this right, and pressure legislators to change the law. The Texas Constitution clearly protects the lawful bearing/wearing of arms for lawful purpose of defense of one's person.
Magistrates have been known not to "allow" constitutions to be brought into the court record. Self defense is an affirmative defense. The threat of becoming a targeted victim of violent crime is very realin Richardson , recognized by the SCOTUS in Heller as being a possible circumstance at any time -therefore Article 2, section 23 is represented in the courtroom when the affirmative defense of self defense is held up. This defeats application of 46.02 to any LAWFUL purpose for carrying a handgun.
I just returned from a visit to the Arlington, Tx area 3 days ago. I contracted for a home while there- contract pending & scheduled to close the end of the month.
While there the OC option was excercised with some stressing of the "exception envelope" ["traveling", in direct route to my vehicle, and on premises under my control]. The envelope was briefly "torn" on several occassions & cautiously disregarded the farther into rural West Texas and the Panhandle that I traveled.The Texas " handgun law" is certainly alawyer'sincome stimulous plan, because no one really understands it.
It seems , at least on the surface, that the failure to conceal issue only applies to CHL holders. Interestingly the rest of the law makes no distinction between concealed or displayed - simply classifies possession of a handgun as criminal conduct except under specified circumstances. It's obvious [ to me] that the intent of the law Title 10 [46.02] was to address WEAPONS being carried in a manner intended to faciltate criminal purpose as opposed to self defense.
So a non-CHL OC'er is not subject to "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to conceal" prosecution when wearing a handgun in plain view. Further, if aperson licensed under authority of Subchapter H, chapter 411 is wearing a handgun in plain view to begin with -absent of intent or attempt to conceal - nogrounds exist for a charge relating to "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly fails to conceal", because the weapon was worn pursuant to the authority of the Texas Constitution.Obviously this is my legal interpretation and should not be relied upon as professional legal counsel - just offerred up for thought. Perhaps
better not to have a Texas CHL for the time being.
What amazes me is that apparently law enforcement has slowly evolved in it's "enforcement" approach to the "handgun laws" in Texas. The law has been on the books as I understand it since 1871. I guess Wyatt Earp & Johnny Ringo, weren'taware that they were in violation of this UCW law when they were involved in a shooting incident outsidethat saloon on Concho St in San Angelo during the 1880's.[Not to be confused with the OK Corralaffair]
Actually - I suspect that no one outside of the Austin City Limits , Dallas, & Houston even knew it was on the books - or at least had the common sense to recognize that it was directed at CRIMINALS......[..."with a view to prevent crime ."]
I respect the determination of those who wish to bring this to a head - and not tippy-toe around the tulips.Urban areas such as DFW Metroplex would not be my choice for challenging 46.02. Community values are a fair measure of law enforcement and jury disposition. DFW suffers from crime problems that simply don't thrive in rural communities, as well as "big city" arrogance.
From what I hear the remedy is close at hand. The fact still remains that what is needed is thousands of Texans with the cautious determination to begin to press against what consist of a veryweakbarricade to free excercise of this right, and pressure legislators to change the law. The Texas Constitution clearly protects the lawful bearing/wearing of arms for lawful purpose of defense of one's person.
Magistrates have been known not to "allow" constitutions to be brought into the court record. Self defense is an affirmative defense. The threat of becoming a targeted victim of violent crime is very realin Richardson , recognized by the SCOTUS in Heller as being a possible circumstance at any time -therefore Article 2, section 23 is represented in the courtroom when the affirmative defense of self defense is held up. This defeats application of 46.02 to any LAWFUL purpose for carrying a handgun.