Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Someone is out and about testing OC in Fort Worth!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I have never posted, but have been lurking around the board for a year or so.

    I have witnessed a young white male, early 30's, who drives a Red Ford Mustang, OC'ing on two occasions around Downtown Fort Worth/ Fort Worth Westside. Each time I have seen him in a store, and in an effort to not call attention to him, did not approach him. I really wanted to talk to him about OC’ing, his experience so far, and any encounter he has had. Does anyone know about this guy?



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Herndon, VA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    Uh, isn't that outlawed in Texas?

  3. #3
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

    Open carry is seriously illegal in Texas. Whoever that is, they are ASKING for trouble.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    A, A
    Posts
    612

    Post imported post

    The fella might of had a badge to match the weapon...

    Can officers OC in Texas?



    Rev Jim II

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Herndon, VA
    Posts
    120

    Post imported post

    JBURGII wrote:
    The fella might of had a badge to match the weapon...

    Can officers OC in Texas?



    Rev Jim II
    If he doesnt he is cruising for a bruisin.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Yes, a licensed, full-time peace officer can OC as can judges and certain other government officials. They will normally have their badge visible, as well, though it's not required.

    If the person OC'ing in the Ft. Worth area has done it more than once or twice, he is probably a cop. If a civilian sees a badge on the belt, they are unlikely to call the police about someone carrying a gun.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Although officers do not have to be in uniform to open carry, my understanding is that they must be displaying their badge.



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I don't recall a requirement for displaying a badge or other ID, but an issue cap or T-shirt, or the badge, certainly avoided questions.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Perhaps this W/M in his early 30's, driving a red Mustang chooses not to display his badge. If he does not have a badge maybe he isnotlicensed under the authority of Subchapter H, chapter 411 (Texas CHL) to carry a handgun. In any cases he may be traveling.Perhaps he owns the store in question, orexercises control over the premises, and is in direct route to his red Mustang when you have observed him.

    You did not place a MWAG call to FWPD and you were obviously not "alarmed" at this person's presentation- so it sounds like a case forlawfully armedlaw-abiding citizen ( or LEO) helping make Texas a safer place for the rest of us.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Even if he is traveling under the new, and much more sensible, definitions laid out in HB1815, the handgun would have to remain concealed on his person or in the vehicle. For some reason, Texas is very squeamish about OC for citizens except in their homes or places of business. I think that's also one of the factors behind the state's very strict view of what constitutes "concealed."

    Nonetheless, so long as his reasons are peaceable, I personally wish the gentleman well.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    TexasBill wrote:
    Even if he is traveling under the new, and much more sensible, definitions laid out in HB1855, the handgun would have to remain concealed on his person or in the vehicle. For some reason, Texas is very squeamish about OC for citizens except in their homes or places of business. I think that's also one of the factors behind the state's very strict view of what constitutes "concealed."

    Nonetheless, so long as his reasons are peaceable, I personally wish the gentleman well.
    The only requirement for 'not in plain sight' is when the carrier is inside the vehicle. The other exemptions for carrying a handgun apply to people on their own property or premises that they control and directly enroute to their vehicle. This means that my wifes car could break down halfway between my house and the 7-11 and I could open carry to her car.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    That would seem to be an awfully liberal view of HB 1815 (which I mistakenly referred to as HB 1855), but you may be correct. I am still not sure I would want to test it out on the Harris County Sheriff's Department even though Chuck Rosenthal is finally gone.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    The only requirement for 'not in plain sight' is when the carrier is inside the vehicle. The other exemptions for carrying a handgun apply to people on their own property or premises that they control and directly enroute to their vehicle. This means that my wifes car could break down halfway between my house and the 7-11 and I could open carry to her car.

    DK,

    I have to disagree with your interpretation of the statute. I feel you are stretching the literal wording too far. While I agree that the actual wording of PC46.02 suggests this interpretation I do not feel this was the intent of the legislators when drafting the statute andthere is no case history to support this view.I feel the courts would find that the intent of the statute was to include a reasonabledistance for accessing ones vehicle, such as a parking area for the residence, business or building one was leaving, and was not intended to cover one for an extended or indefinite distance. Applyingthe literalwording and interpretation of the statute as you suggest one could effectively open carryacross the entire state if they had access to a vehicle on the other side.

    I feel the courts would limit the exemption afforded under the statute to the reasonable parking area ofones immediate confines and would not support ones right to carry beyond that area under this statute. I am certain that any LEO would see it this way andone would most definitely find them self defendingthis position if you were to try it. While it may be the literal wording of the statute, the courts base their actions and opinions primarilyon theintent of the statute and I feel this is how they would interpret it.

    Doc


  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    DocNTexas wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    The only requirement for 'not in plain sight' is when the carrier is inside the vehicle. The other exemptions for carrying a handgun apply to people on their own property or premises that they control and directly enroute to their vehicle. This means that my wifes car could break down halfway between my house and the 7-11 and I could open carry to her car.

    DK,

    I have to disagree with your interpretation of the statute. I feel you are stretching the literal wording too far. While I agree that the actual wording of PC46.02 suggests this interpretation I do not feel this was the intent of the legislators when drafting the statute andthere is no case history to support this view.I feel the courts would find that the intent of the statute was to include a reasonabledistance for accessing ones vehicle, such as a parking area for the residence, business or building one was leaving, and was not intended to cover one for an extended or indefinite distance. Applyingthe literalwording and interpretation of the statute as you suggest one could effectively open carryacross the entire state if they had access to a vehicle on the other side.

    I feel the courts would limit the exemption afforded under the statute to the reasonable parking area ofones immediate confines and would not support ones right to carry beyond that area under this statute. I am certain that any LEO would see it this way andone would most definitely find them self defendingthis position if you were to try it. While it may be the literal wording of the statute, the courts base their actions and opinions primarilyon theintent of the statute and I feel this is how they would interpret it.

    Doc
    Doc, as to the courts ignoring literal wording of the text, i'd agree with you. In reading decades of case law, both state and federal, I pretty much have zero faith in the judiciary of either entity in applying the law as it is written, especially when it concerns individual rights. That's why there is case precedent in texas that the pre-1899 antique law doesn't work for open carry, since the texas courts decided that for carrying purposes, the pre 1899 is a firearm and not an antique.

    It also wouldn't surprise me to see a conviction for carrying a rifle be upheld because the courts would apply some jacked up definition to include it.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    The Texas court, can't do that about the 1899 Antique fire arms law.

    Thats over stepping their authority, by over riding the Legislators Intent.

    Thats making new laws on their own. Thats in violation of common law.

    and is stated in UCC 1-103.6 " A staute should be construed in HARMONY with the Common Law, unless there is a claer legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law". This is the laws they go byall codes and statues' UCC is (Uniform Commercial Code) This is how they get around the Constitution and our Bill of Rights !

    That needs to be challanged. Write your legislators or atterney general and ask for a clarification on the 1899 antique law.

    Also read " Without Prejudice" UCC 1-207 You can google it.

    Hope this helps ! Robin47

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    If anyone wants to match Him, just carry a Long Gun in Texas around the Fort Worth Area!


    Long Guns are not prohibited under Texas Penal Code Sec. 46-02, so as long as you do not take it [the Long Gun] to any place listed as prohibited under Texas Penal Code 46.03!

    Yes... the Long Gun may be both Openly carried and Loaded.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    That's mainly why I brought back my Mossberg 590A1 MilSpec from my just completed trip back West (to visit friends and family for the holidays...and get said 590A1 out of my storage safe).

    After a serious hurricane here and in a war-zone environment, it'll be safer toOC the shotgun over my shoulder than it would be my OCinga handgun -- like I did last time in the aftermath ofHurricane Ikebecause Idid not have a suitable longarm -- sinceI would not have to be overly concerned about local cops who might notice (I only OCed at night out on the gounds, "patrolling" for looters, partly to avoid cops seeing me doing that). Although the cops said they'd not bother me OCing a handgun -- due to thedisaster situation and IF I stayed on the complex grounds -- I'd rather carry a long arm as it is clearly legal.

    Besides, the shotgun will do more damage to looters and their vehicles than my handgun would.

    Still looking forward to the legal OCing of handguns in Texas though...

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ellis County, Texas, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Doc, as to the courts ignoring literal wording of the text, i'd agree with you. In reading decades of case law, both state and federal, I pretty much have zero faith in the judiciary of either entity in applying the law as it is written, especially when it concerns individual rights. That's why there is case precedent in texas that the pre-1899 antique law doesn't work for open carry, since the texas courts decided that for carrying purposes, the pre 1899 is a firearm and not an antique.

    It also wouldn't surprise me to see a conviction for carrying a rifle be upheld because the courts would apply some jacked up definition to include it.
    DK, can you post here or provide to me in PM the cases where someone was convicted of UCW or something else because the court concluded that a pre-1899 firearm wasn't an antique? I've been looking for such precedent but haven't been able to find it.

    Thanks, SA-TX

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ellis County, Texas, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    If anyone wants to match Him, just carry a Long Gun in Texas around the Fort Worth Area!


    Long Guns are not prohibited under Texas Penal Code Sec. 46-02, so as long as you do not take it [the Long Gun] to any place listed as prohibited under Texas Penal Code 46.03!

    Yes... the Long Gun may be both Openly carried and Loaded.
    True (about open carry of long guns), and I'm not an attorney, butmy view is that46.03 is unconstitutional. The legislature is only given the power to regulate the "wearing" of arms. I don't have any references that I can post right now, but I would have to think that it was legally decided long ago that long arms aren't "worn". That seems to imply that the legislature has no authority on this subject.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Texas needs to pass a law stating open carry is legal for handguns then state this also applies to rifles and shotguns, etc for informational purposes.

    Yes, Texas - Oklahoma - Arkansas and the other states - Alabama, Florida, and NC or SC - all need to the same.

    I know you have tried, now try again - there is a new wave rolling across the country, your opposing forces of course will be your own TX CHL Instructors (since you are threatening their income and job security) along with "some" Peace Officers, govt lawyers, and judges (usually former judges) - again you are a threat to their elitism and people control perceived powers.



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    All of The States that IDAHO COWBOY mentioned allow Open Carry of a Long Gun, except Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Florida, but even those States do with a legitamite reason.

    All of the Laws in The South concerning Handguns are all based off of old Jim Crow Laws, concerning, namely, disarming Minorities.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    aadvark wrote:
    All of The States that IDAHO COWBOY mentioned allow Open Carry of a Long Gun, except Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Florida, but even those States do with a legitamite reason.

    All of the Laws in The South concerning Handguns are all based off of old Jim Crow Laws, concerning, namely, disarming Minorities

    Try reading my words instead of reading your thoughts of what you think I wrote.

    I did not say long gun open carry was illegal,what I said was state it in the new law for informational purposes.

    Montana had to do the same thing because some johnny law dogs (not all just some) along with some county shyster lawyers - could not read the Montana Constitution and hassled even some arrested then some even charged for open carry of handguns rifles shotguns - all (meaning both long and short guns) were legal to carry open since there was no law against it. In the Spring of 2009, Montana fixed this problem - and spelled it out in plain words for the commies and the morons in Montana.

    Try reading my words instead of reading your thoughts of what you think I wrote.



Posting Permissions

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