Question about Texas and opencarry

I see from the map "unpermitted open carry" is illegal in Texas. My question is, what if you have a Concealed Weapons Permit, then can you open carry?

Here's the deal: my father is a "Winter Texan" (stays in Harlingen). He WILL have a Michigan CPL (Concealed Weapons Permit) by the time he goes to Texas next.

What's his restrictions as far as concealed carry and open carry?

If Open Carry is still restricted/prohibited, what about printing? What about slight printing? (ex: OWB Padle Holster with a loose shirt over it where you might get a hint of a gun)

What about car carry?

Any help you can give me I'd appreciate and will pass on to my father.

TheQ said:

I see from the map "unpermitted open carry" is illegal in Texas. My question is, what if you have a Concealed Weapons Permit, then can you open carry?

Here's the deal: my father is a "Winter Texan" (stays in Harlingen). He WILL have a Michigan CPL (Concealed Weapons Permit) by the time he goes to Texas next.

What's his restrictions as far as concealed carry and open carry?

If Open Carry is still restricted/prohibited, what about printing? What about slight printing? (ex: OWB Padle Holster with a loose shirt over it where you might get a hint of a gun)

What about car carry?

Any help you can give me I'd appreciate and will pass on to my father.

Click to expand...

If you're traveling you can OC, but once you reach your destination you're no longer traveling & OC goes out the window. With a CPL, he needs to know that concealed carry is pretty strict in TX. No exposure, no printing.

The practical definition of concealed carry in TX is something along the lines of "undetectable carry." The law says "intentionally fails to conceal," but I personally know LEO's who will arrest for inadvertent printing. To some of them, accidental implies negligence, & negligence implies willful disregard. Not all places are like that. I've also been to several small towns/communities where they don't care if it's completely exposed on your hip.

Considering that, it's generally best to play it safe & stick to easily concealable compacts/pocket pistols. My most common summer-time carry is a 2.5" .357 that fits comfortably in my front pocket. It looks like I carry a big set of keys to anyone else.

And people say Texas is gun friendly. >.<

VW_Factor said:

And people say Texas is gun friendly. >.<

Click to expand...

You'd THINK it would be, No OC, Guns banned based on % of booze sold at places. Arrested for printing. Screw that. Before moving to a free state I would have bet my savings that TX would have been one of the free-est gun states out there.....wrong

snatale42 said:

You'd THINK it would be, No OC, Guns banned based on % of booze sold at places. Arrested for printing. Screw that. Before moving to a free state I would have bet my savings that TX would have been one of the free-est gun states out there.....wrong

Click to expand...

Yes, it was a rather large shock to me as a Texas native as well. You grow up thinking this is just the way it is, then you see how other states handle it & think to yourself "Wow, why isn't TX like that?"

Pooley,

Thanks for your help. I've set my father straight on TX CC. Come to Michigan, we're MUCH more free on OC.

Simply. I would NOT! Not now anyway, maybe after the next session which would be 2013! Maybe or hopefully the PRINTING or exposure restrictions will be done away with by then, but we can only wait and see.

Because certain concealed carry advocates get all heated up about this one point, I have to remind everyone that printing is not a violation. It is a violation if someone "intentionally fails to conceal".

Government Code 411.171 has the controlling definition of what "concealed" means:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

KBCraig said:

Because certain concealed carry advocates get all heated up about this one point, I have to remind everyone that printing is not a violation. It is a violation if someone "intentionally fails to conceal".

Government Code 411.171 has the controlling definition of what "concealed" means:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Click to expand...

I agree, but it still doesn't stop the occasional LEO hassling & possibly arresting you for it. I was drawn on by a state trooper once & it was under a leather coat. All he could have possibly seen was a non-descript bulge. For all he knew it could have been a cellphone, could have been a tape measure (I'd just left work and it actually WAS a tape measure). The bottom line is I didn't intentionally fail to conceal my tape measure and still had a pistol aimed at my chest.

EDIT: There are two different realities involved in this. What the law says you can't do, and what the average LEO will arrests (or in my case almost shoots) you for anyway.

Basically, it boils down to whether or not you're willing to be arrested or murdered for "printing." In my case that "print" wasn't even a handgun and I was still staring at the wrong end of a Beretta.

EDIT 2: I'm not saying that's a standard practice or even a common occurrence in TX. But it's happened once to me & could possibly happen again. If I die my wife will be stuck paying for a $220k house on $38k annual income, my parents have to bury their only child & my kids grow up without a father. I'm doing all I can to help change the way things are, but the way they are right now I wouldn't risk it.

KBCraig said:

Because certain concealed carry advocates get all heated up about this one point, I have to remind everyone that printing is not a violation. It is a violation if someone "intentionally fails to conceal".

Government Code 411.171 has the controlling definition of what "concealed" means:

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Click to expand...

Here we see demonstrated the classic distinction between de facto and de jure. As I posted in another thread:

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.

Click to expand...

Cops have plenty of laws, notably including Disorderly Conduct, that provide ample excuse to harass and arrest anyone they please, with or without reason. Even without such laws, the legal environment in the United States grants cops effective impunity to do as they please. Even if their misconduct is recorded, in all but the most extreme and rare cases they suffer no meaningful discipline even for gross violations of civil liberties. At the end of the day, what determines whether a cop harasses or arrests you is the cop's mood and his or her willingness to deal with a little paperwork. Whether the harassment and arrest will result in charges, and whether those charges will be upheld in court, are effectively irrelevant. Welcome to modern America.

You'll never catch me arguing that you can out-lawyer a cop during a traffic stop. I've never once said you'll beat the ride... but you will almost definitely beat the rap, unless he flat-out lies (which isn't an impossibility).

After all, when the Legislature first tried to make it clear that car carry was legal by defining "traveling" (before the current Motorist Protection Act made it concretely certain), Chuckie Rosenthal (Harris County DA) issued an advisory to all Harris Co. LE agencies that this was only a defense to prosecution, and that any unlicensed person with a handgun in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle should be arrested, and that his office would prosecute them so that they would then have the chance to prove their innocence in court.

So, I'm not saying you won't be arrested. As noted above, you can be arrested for anything, even if it's some charge that doesn't even exist. It happens all the time with disorderly conduct charges, AKA "contempt of cop". Especially if you piss him off on Friday night, and he knows you'll be in jail until Monday morning, at the earliest.

Remember: even having a concealed handgun and a CHL is only a "defense to prosecution", not an exemption. If you hand over your DL and CHL during a traffic stop, and let the officer know that you are carrying, he can arrest you for Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon, put you in jail, and then chuckle about it when you win at court. He doesn't care if you win at trial, he "won" by screwing up your day/weekend/year and your finances.

So, for that kind of cop, it doesn't matter if you're printing heavily or carrying deep concealment. Or, like in Pooley's case, what the cop saw wasn't even a gun.

Does it happen? Yeah. How often? We don't know, but we hear many fewer reports now than we did 15 years ago. The incident in Waxahachie was pretty embarrassing for the WPD, and it's been used as a training point for TX agencies since then.

Chl was a defense to prosecution when it first cane out. Now it's an ecemption

I really do hate to add further grief to the common "understanding" of handgun law in Texas - BUT.........( I really can't help myself - either).

Carrying a handgun in Texas is "PROTECTED" under Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution - as long as you don't carry it CONCEALED, WITHOUT A LICENSE TO CARRY A HANDGUN CONCEALED. That is - as long as you don't threaten anyone UNLAWFULLY .

However -as an earlier VERY ASTUTE poster pointed out - what is "legal" in Texas ( or any other state) is what a good lawyer can pursuade a judge , or jury to decide IS LEGAL.

Texas ( or any other ) courts do not much like constitutions. That's because the constitutions supercede the courts and reflect the will of the people. So the courts will attempt to "amend" the constitutions in order to support their point of view, and prejudices. The courts pretty much get away with such maneuvers because the people have become complacent, pretty much defining their very existence by raising children, while not paying much attention to what the carpet baggers are doing to their LIBERTIES.

Raising children is a noteworthy endeavor. Once upon a time - I too defined my existence by the "quality" of my children that I had procreated, and set loose on the planet. In reflection -there MUST be something more to our existence than this.

I will tell those parents who will listen - that the day may well come when your children will DEMAND CONTROL OVER YOUR LIFE - or will effectively "banish" you from THEIRS.

Meanwhile, while the populous has been focused upon the "Epic" of their progeny- the country goes to Hell in a handbasket because FEW have been PAYING ATTENTION to the acts of the carpet baggers.

I LOVE MY CHILDREN - all THREE of them, but having children is a CONSEQUENCE of life - NOT THE SUM TOTAL OF IT.

If Americans do not start paying attention to the state of their REPUBLIC - they will lose it.

rushcreek2 said:

I really do hate to add further grief to the common "understanding" of handgun law in Texas - BUT.........( I really can't help myself - either).

Carrying a handgun in Texas is "PROTECTED" under Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution - as long as you don't carry it CONCEALED, WITHOUT A LICENSE TO CARRY A HANDGUN CONCEALED. That is - as long as you don't threaten anyone UNLAWFULLY .

However -as an earlier VERY ASTUTE poster pointed out - what is "legal" in Texas ( or any other state) is what a good lawyer can pursuade a judge , or jury to decide IS LEGAL.

Texas ( or any other ) courts do not much like constitutions. That's because the constitutions supercede the courts and reflect the will of the people. So the courts will attempt to "amend" the constitutions in order to support their point of view, and prejudices. The courts pretty much get away with such maneuvers because the people have become complacent, pretty much defining their very existence by raising children, while not paying much attention to what the carpet baggers are doing to their LIBERTIES.

Raising children is a noteworthy endeavor. Once upon a time - I too defined my existence by the "quality" of my children that I had procreated, and set loose on the planet. In reflection -there MUST be something more to our existence than this.

I will tell those parents who will listen - that the day may well come when your children will DEMAND CONTROL OVER YOUR LIFE - or will effectively "banish" you from THEIRS.

Meanwhile, while the populous has been focused upon the "Epic" of their progeny- the country goes to Hell in a handbasket because FEW have been PAYING ATTENTION to the acts of the carpet baggers.

I LOVE MY CHILDREN - all THREE of them, but having children is a CONSEQUENCE of life - NOT THE SUM TOTAL OF IT.

If Americans do not start paying attention to the state of their REPUBLIC - they will lose it.

Click to expand...

I'm confused, what does the relationship of parent and child in the waning years have to do with OC in TX?

PracticalTactical said:

I'm confused, what does the relationship of parent and child in the waning years have to do with OC in TX?

Click to expand...

I believe it was just an illustration that procreation isn't the sole purpose of our existence. One must also do their part to make the place suitable for the next generation.

By not actively reclaiming & maintaining our rights, we've effectively given the opposition the control we now complain about.

Thank you Pooley for inserting my little rant into the proverbial "nutshell".

If the folks are not able to see that liberties have, and will continue to be nibbled away by bureaucrats, legislatures, and the courts if the PEOPLE do not start paying attention. I personally see absolutely nothing "confusing" about that concept.

rushcreek2 said:

Thank you Pooley for inserting my little rant into the proverbial "nutshell".

If the folks are not able to see that liberties have, and will continue to be nibbled away by bureaucrats, legislatures, and the courts if the PEOPLE do not start paying attention. I personally see absolutely nothing "confusing" about that concept.

Click to expand...

Any time, Jim

It's a matter of taking responsibility. After all, isn't sitting on the beach watching a man drown when you could save him just as much a murder as going out there & holding his head under the water?

Too many people sit and watch our liberties drown without taking action. Every single bill that could possibly affect me or anyone I know, I follow & ask all my friends/family/coworkers to call/email their rep/senator. I even provide phone numbers! Most of them do it too.

It isn't enough simply to vote for the lesser of two evils. We all have to make our voices heard at the capitol, both state and federal. Only a very minute fraction of voters actually take the time to contact their rep/senator. We all have the opportunity to be heard and if enough voices say the same thing, it can sometimes swing the few critical votes we need to pass good legislation or stop a bad bill in its track. All it takes is a quick little 2 minute phone call...

It all goes back to that "I'm just one voice, what possible difference could I make?" mentality. Yes, we are each just one voice. Collectively, the voice of the people is nothing more than the sum of all those individual voices. Tell your friends, tell your family, tell random people in the checkout line! We have to make the positive outweigh the negative.

EDIT: Sorry for my own little rant there. I'm still fuming about how a Republican majority legislature failed so completely this session...

Defense To Prosecution by Case Law

CrimsonSoul said:

Chl was a defense to prosecution when it first cane out. Now it's an ecemption

Click to expand...

All the 46.15 (non-applicability) provisions are considered a Defense to Prosecution by case law. So it's still a Defense, not an exemption.

i followed a link here from another thread.

like many other people, i assumed texas was different than what the reality is. hell, when i think of texas, i think of longhorns, chuck norris, and cowboys.

any open carry bills, anytime soon, that have a chance of winning?

ElectricianLU58 said:

i followed a link here from another thread.

like many other people, i assumed texas was different than what the reality is. hell, when i think of texas, i think of longhorns, chuck norris, and cowboys.

any open carry bills, anytime soon, that have a chance of winning?

Click to expand...

The next session is in 2013 and we're getting ready.