Accidental exposure bill

[jmra]

Actually, I read this as essentially CHL Open Carry.... masquerading as a clean up bill. I like it!

Let me explain, by using Long guns as an example.
Currently, Long guns are not prohibited from being carried openly, we all know this.
The only 'carry-related' crime you can commit, openly carrying a firearm in a public place, is what is sometimes referred to as 'Brandishing' by some, but is actually known as "Disorderly Conduct"

Code: Select all

Sec. 42.01.  DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8)  displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

The wording look familiar?
If the above bill passes, the standards under which Open Carry are allowed for Long guns, would be mirrored verbatim for exposure of Handguns by CHLs.
Essentially, CHL Open Carry.

This is the way I read it. I'm not sure I like it though.
If this passes and people start to OC in stores and other places where CC is not currently an issue (because no one sees anything) business owners will receive complaints from customers and the owners will inquire as to how they can prohibit this activity. Up goes 30.06 signs and then CC is affected where it was not before.
If we are going to have OC, we need to do it correctly where it is not tied to 30.06 in any way whatsoever.

But this only allows open carry by CHL holders. How many of them do you think are going to suddenly go out causing 30.06 signs to go up.
I'd like to think that it would be nowhere near as bad as universal, unlicensed open carry would be, as most would probably stick to CC, and this would be more used as protection than used as Open Carry.
I'd like to think that we can trust ourselves to not sabotage... ourselves.

I believe there would be those who have been very vocal about OC in the past who, if they don't already have a CHL, would obtain one for the sole purpose of OC.

[dicion]

Personally, I think I'm for this bill.
In my opinion, its the right step towards universal open carry. Baby steps. First allow CHL's to do it, more as a protective measure against exposure then as de-facto open carry.
CHL's, the ones who probably wouldn't do it the most... nothing happens.
Then, its simply removing the CHL requirement later.

[dicion]

I believe there would be those who have been very vocal about OC in the past who, if they don't already have a CHL, would obtain one for the sole purpose of OC.

Yes, possibly, but it would be MUCH more of a 'soft' opening than a flood-gates unrestricted open carry becoming legal. Much less risk of 'BLOOD IN THE STREETS!' Call to action, and huge public hubbub, Esentially since it's worded and appears to merely be a clean-up/protection bill, and isn't being touted as the 'CHL Open-Carry Act of 2013'

We'll refer it to the 'Unintended (Beneficial) Consequences Act of 2013' XD

The way it's worded, the way it's filed (Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun), and seemingly minimal, at first, second, and third glance changes it makes to the code, make it Extremely likely to be able to slip in 'under the radar' than the Mack Truck 'Open Carry Act' bashing through the gates version. It really is quite genius. I don't know if it was intended that way, or completely accidental, but I like it.

I guess most people just don't know that the only thing that makes CHL open carry illegal, are those 6 words, "intentionally fails to conceal the handgun". Remove/Change them, and it's legal, albeit with some restrictions. (Don't intentionally scare the public!)

[jmra]

The way it's worded, the way it's filed (Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun), and seemingly minimal, at first, second, and third glance changes it makes to the code, make it Extremely likely to be able to slip in 'under the radar' than the Mack Truck 'Open Carry Act' bashing through the gates version. It really is quite genius. I don't know if it was intended that way, or completely accidental, but I like it.

Have you meet the Austin media?

[dicion]

The way it's worded, the way it's filed (Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun), and seemingly minimal, at first, second, and third glance changes it makes to the code, make it Extremely likely to be able to slip in 'under the radar' than the Mack Truck 'Open Carry Act' bashing through the gates version. It really is quite genius. I don't know if it was intended that way, or completely accidental, but I like it.

Have you meet the Austin media?

No, I stay away from there. On every map I own, I replace it with a large black blob, with the white text 'Here be Dragons'

[jmra]

The way it's worded, the way it's filed (Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun), and seemingly minimal, at first, second, and third glance changes it makes to the code, make it Extremely likely to be able to slip in 'under the radar' than the Mack Truck 'Open Carry Act' bashing through the gates version. It really is quite genius. I don't know if it was intended that way, or completely accidental, but I like it.

Have you meet the Austin media?

No, I stay away from there. On every map I own, I replace it with a large black blob, with the white text 'Here be Dragons'

I hear you. I just don't think this will sneak under the radar. But I was wrong once, unless I am mistaken.

[cyphur]

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:

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.

Unless the legal definition of ordinary observation of a reasonable person has changed from plain sight lately, this sounds NOTHING like open carry.

[jmra]

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:

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.

Unless the legal definition of ordinary observation of a reasonable person has changed from plain sight lately, this sounds NOTHING like open carry.

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.
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.

[mojo84]

Hopefully Mr. Cotton will share his thoughts on this. I like it based on what I see. Unless he points out something I'm not seeing, I'm all for it.

[cyphur]

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:

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.

Unless the legal definition of ordinary observation of a reasonable person has changed from plain sight lately, this sounds NOTHING like open carry.

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.
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.

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.

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.

[RPB]

If a bunch of CHL carriers rent a lakeside pavilion like at a Marble Falls Lakeside Park for an event like a Barbeque Lunch meetin' on the patio/porch, and all open carried their barbeque guns o the city park property which was rented out for that CHL/TeaParty/GOP/Church Singing and fellowship lunch/CHL class/whatever/gun show event and an ad or story was in the local paper about it, I'd think no one should be alarmed assuming no one draws and starts waving a gun around recklessly.

[dicion]

If a bunch of CHL carriers rent a lakeside pavilion like at a Marble Falls Lakeside Park for an event like a Barbeque Lunch meetin' on the patio/porch, and all open carried their barbeque guns o the city park property which was rented out for that CHL/TeaParty/GOP/Church Singing and fellowship lunch/CHL class/whatever/gun show event and an ad or story was in the local paper about it, I'd think no one should be alarmed assuming no one draws and starts waving a gun around recklessly.

Some might even consider it the safest place in the park... I sure wouldn't want to try to commit a violent act anywhere nearby...

[SherwoodForest]

SB299 by incorporating the 42.01 (a)(8) disorderly conduct language remedies the present 42.035(a) classification of a criminal offense in lieu of the existence of any actual crime committed against property or person.

Under the proposed SB299 amendment Texans with CHL's would have the option of deciding whether or not they wish to test the waters while wearing a (preferably HOLSTERED) displayed handgun in various private premesis establishments just as folks in the other "open carry states" now do on a daily basis.

I think it is naive to contend that CHL's endeavoring to so test the waters will NOT motivate some such establishments to at the very least consider posting either gun-buster , or 30.06 signs at entrances.

Unfortunately some CHL's can be expected to sidestep the necessity for polite decorum, respect for social protocal, and deference to private property prerogatives. Depending upon how individual CHL's respond upon being confronted, questioned , or asked to leave -the results of such testing of the waters will be determined.

I would personally opt to proceed delicately upon undertaking to step across the threshhold of any private property establishment while displaying. That doesn't mean I would not - only that I would do so only after employing all my faculties of reason, common sense and situational awareness.

Having carried in Colorado for several years I would describe my carry condition as subtle, discreet, and always mindful of the manner in which I present myself at an entrance to any business establishment. Never had a problem...yet.

I'm curious about the inclussion of the words " IN PLAIN VIEW " following " DISPLAYS" in SB299. A bit redundant I think. Almost suggestive of "brandishment"- as if the act encompasses some "show & tell" element.

The holstered requirement included in HB700 should find its way into any final version providing for regulation of display.

Regarding the "concealed" handgun stipulation of the CHL law - it seems to me that the result would be simply that .......Yes, of course - the CHL is afterall a license to carry a handgun CONCEALED - while carrying a handgun. I don't see CONCEALED vs DISPLAYED as being an either/OR proposition once Texas law provides for some meaningful clarification of what constitutes a criminal offense when displaying a deady weapon in public - i.e. 42.01(a)(8) disorderly conduct provision.

[Charles L. Cotton]

SB299 by incorporating the 42.01 (a)(8) disorderly conduct language remedies the present 42.035(a) classification of a criminal offense in lieu of the existence of any actual crime committed against property or person.

Under the proposed SB299 amendment Texans with CHL's would have the option of deciding whether or not they wish to test the waters while wearing a (preferably HOLSTERED) displayed handgun in various private premesis establishments just as folks in the other "open carry states" now do on a daily basis.

I think it is naive to contend that CHL's endeavoring to so test the waters will NOT motivate some such establishments to at the very least consider posting either gun-buster , or 30.06 signs at entrances.

Unfortunately some CHL's can be expected to sidestep the necessity for polite decorum, respect for social protocal, and deference to private property prerogatives. Depending upon how individual CHL's respond upon being confronted, questioned , or asked to leave -the results of such testing of the waters will be determined.

I would personally opt to proceed delicately upon undertaking to step across the threshhold of any private property establishment while displaying. That doesn't mean I would not - only that I would do so only after employing all my faculties of reason, common sense and situational awareness.

Having carried in Colorado for several years I would describe my carry condition as subtle, discreet, and always mindful of the manner in which I present myself at an entrance to any business establishment. Never had a problem...yet.

I'm curious about the inclussion of the words " IN PLAIN VIEW " following " DISPLAYS" in SB299. A bit redundant I think. Almost suggestive of "brandishment"- as if the act encompasses some "show & tell" element.

The holstered requirement included in HB700 should find its way into any final version providing for regulation of display.

Regarding the "concealed" handgun stipulation of the CHL law - it seems to me that the result would be simply that .......Yes, of course - the CHL is afterall a license to carry a handgun CONCEALED - while carrying a handgun. I don't see CONCEALED vs DISPLAYED as being an either/OR proposition once Texas law provides for some meaningful clarification of what constitutes a criminal offense when displaying a deady weapon in public - i.e. 42.01(a)(8) disorderly conduct provision.

The goal and motivation for SB299 is not to establish open-carry, but to address the perceived problem of being arrested for unintentional failure to conceal. That is why the definition of a concealed handgun was not repealed.

I see your argument and it just might prevail in court, but like you, I wouldn't be the test case!

Chas.

[SherwoodForest]

Thank you Charles for the clarification. SB299 is NOT and open carry bill.

I LIKE it. The bill would clarify the original intent of 46.035a - PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL - as constituting the exercise of the Legislature's "....power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent CRIME ." Hence the prescription of a Class A misdemeanor penalty applied to a CRIMINAL offense.

Good example of housekeeping legislation.