While I admire your enthusiasm, and wish common sense reigned supreme, I for one would not like to be the test case for that concept. I would at the very least look for a letter of opinion from the AG or something similar on this bill stating the State's position on the law.jmra wrote:The same code also says that we are required to provide a LEO with our CHL if we are asked for ID. However the penalty for not doing so has been removed making it moot.cyphur wrote:Have all of you forgotten the very definition of the the CHL? CONCEALED.
Changing the language which defines the basis of failure to conceal, does not obviate the need to conceal at the base level. Regardless of what this bill does, Subchapter H, Section 411, which established the Concealed Handgun License, still holds this definition to be true:
Unless the legal definition of ordinary observation of a reasonable person has changed from plain sight lately, this sounds NOTHING like open carry.SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
<text removed>
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.
Removing failure to conceal as an offense does the same thing. You have a license to possess a firearm with no penalty for failure to conceal unless you display it in a manner calculated to alarm. This leaves the door wide open for OC.
I still think it'd be a thin line to tow in court and personally am not sure it'd be worth it to test. Pumping gas? Sure - I could see this covering that circumstance. Walking through Walmart? Not so much.