Search found 4 matches

by JKTex
Mon May 13, 2013 2:33 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: SB299 to Governor
Replies: 61
Views: 10910

Re: SB299 to Governor

CJD wrote:I wish an owb holster openly carried wouldn't count as "displaying" but instead would be intentionally failing to conceal.
I think you're making it much more complicated than it is. Just use the words in the bill and don't try to change them from their meaning and it's cut and dry. I'm bad about taking something simple and thinking it's more complex than it is, but words mean what they mean and in this case it's different.

And it has nothing to do with open carry as I think some are trying to make it fit it in to. :mrgreen:
by JKTex
Fri May 10, 2013 1:14 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: SB299 to Governor
Replies: 61
Views: 10910

Re: SB299 to Governor

CJD wrote:
JKTex wrote:
CJD wrote:Yeah. It seems to me the display wording won't change much as opposed to just adding "intentional", but the "public place" could have a pretty good effect.
No, the change is significant. It is "intentionally display" vs. "intentionally fail to conceal". I'm not sure how some aren't seeing how different that is. It's big.
I'm just thinking if you intentionally fail to conceal, you might as well be displaying as you know full well what you are doing and that your piece is visible.
If it were, there would be no difference in the words used. There is however, and the words are a game changer.
by JKTex
Fri May 10, 2013 12:43 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: SB299 to Governor
Replies: 61
Views: 10910

Re: SB299 to Governor

CJD wrote:Yeah. It seems to me the display wording won't change much as opposed to just adding "intentional", but the "public place" could have a pretty good effect.
No, the change is significant. It is "intentionally display" vs. "intentionally fail to conceal". I'm not sure how some aren't seeing how different that is. It's big.
by JKTex
Fri May 10, 2013 12:41 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: SB299 to Governor
Replies: 61
Views: 10910

Re: SB299 to Governor

2firfun50 wrote:In my little brain, we are required to "carry concealed", so we must have left the house with the proper "intention" and dress to be concealed. If we did not, then we "intentionally" displayed. When the wind blows the cover garment open inadvertently "displaying", no crime has been committed as we did not "intentionally" display. We can restore concealment and go about our business.

If we are in a situation where force, or possibly deadly force is addresses in the statute, and we "intentionally" display to deal with the situation, no crime has been committed as we're justified.

Unless I get better direction, that is how I will address it to my students.

Just my opinion, and no, I won't volunteer to be a test case.
I must have the same tiny brain syndrome; that's exactly how I read and understand it. It's funny how much better tiny brains are than big ones most of the time. :mrgreen:

Return to “SB299 to Governor”