You are correct. However, the issue becomes the initial interpretation by an officer and hot taking all of the statute into consideration. The big thing is we actually only have one case where an individual failed to conceal and was arrested. Because of the lack of numerous cases (which is really a good thing) we do not know how or if this change will affect anyone's perception. I think it will help, but it may not make one bit of difference.CJD wrote:Not really, because intentional is what makes the language confusing, without it it is no longer confusing. If you intentionally fail to conceal, which means you purposefully do not hide it, how is your intention NOT for others to see it?Keith B wrote:Take out 'intentionally'. I believe that will help.CJD wrote:Ok I believe you. Could you give me an example of when you would be intentionally failing to conceal, but not displayin? What would owb on hip be?
A person who 'fails to conceal' their hand gun or 'fails to conceal' their identity gets discovered that they are carrying or someone figures out who they are. In the case of handog, he exposed his pistol and was discovered, so the cops took him to jail because he 'failed to conceal' his gun. When the case was reviewed, the DA determines the whole statute must apply, it was not intentional, so no law was broken and charges are dropped.
Now, with the word change, if you put something on 'display', your intent was to show that item to others. Think of a display at a store or at an art gallery; you want people to see it. If you accidentally reveal your handgun, you are not displaying it. If you take it out of the holster and show it to someone,then you ARE displaying it because you want the other person to see it.
Maybe that clarifies it?
As said before, I really don't care that the failure to conceal was changed to display; my big HOORAH moment is the change in adding the word 'force' to the statute.