SB299 to Governor

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 9140
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: SB299 to Governor

#31

Post by Beiruty » Sun May 12, 2013 5:57 pm

polekitty wrote:
Rrash wrote:How about this scenario. You meet a friend/co-worker at a restaurant. When you get there, you see a 51% or a valid 30.06 sign. You return back to your vehicle to secure your weapon. In the process of transferring the firearm(s) to your storage spot, someone happens to walk by close enough to see what is in your hand. You have now unintentionally displayed your handgun in a public place, but not in a way meant to cause alarm. SB 299 will clarify the wording of the law under these circumstances, assuming the well-intentioned passer-by calls the police.
How about this scenario, just like Rrash, except you’re on a motorcycle and you go back to the parking lot to lock your weapon in your saddle bag and someone sees you removing it from your holster. Is that intentional or display? :confused5
From to your car motorcycle you can open carry and you do not a CHL
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member

User avatar

hillfighter
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: Hill Country

Re: SB299 to Governor

#32

Post by hillfighter » Sun May 12, 2013 6:26 pm

Beiruty wrote:
polekitty wrote:How about this scenario, just like Rrash, except you’re on a motorcycle and you go back to the parking lot to lock your weapon in your saddle bag and someone sees you removing it from your holster. Is that intentional or display? :confused5
From to your car motorcycle you can open carry and you do not a CHL
On somebody else's property?
"support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"


Topic author
CJD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:38 pm
Location: Conroe

Re: SB299 to Governor

#33

Post by CJD » Mon May 13, 2013 2:03 am

hillfighter wrote:
Beiruty wrote:
polekitty wrote:How about this scenario, just like Rrash, except you’re on a motorcycle and you go back to the parking lot to lock your weapon in your saddle bag and someone sees you removing it from your holster. Is that intentional or display? :confused5
From to your car motorcycle you can open carry and you do not a CHL
On somebody else's property?
I don't believe that's the case. That seems like it would be intentional, but not display. Good example!


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: SB299 to Governor

#34

Post by JKTex » Mon May 13, 2013 2:33 pm

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:


SherwoodForest
Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: SB299 to Governor

#35

Post by SherwoodForest » Mon May 13, 2013 2:47 pm

Simply stated : NOT - NOT - NOT " displayed in plain view of another person".


Natesac
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:45 am
Location: Rowlett, TX

Re: SB299 to Governor

#36

Post by Natesac » Mon May 20, 2013 11:17 am

Signed by Rick.
Springfield XDm 9mmC
Crossbreed super tuck


cowhow
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Fort Worth
Contact:

Re: SB299 to Governor

#37

Post by cowhow » Tue May 28, 2013 7:11 pm

New to the forum, so forgive any stumble, but I'm curious how this bill might effect printing. With Texas heat concealment gets challenging and might this bill have some impact on that?


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: SB299 to Governor

#38

Post by K.Mooneyham » Tue May 28, 2013 7:33 pm

cowhow wrote:New to the forum, so forgive any stumble, but I'm curious how this bill might effect printing. With Texas heat concealment gets challenging and might this bill have some impact on that?
The term "printing" does NOT exist in Texas Penal Code like it does in some other states; basically, it is meaningless. However, there was some concern that accidental exposure might land someone in hot water due to the current wording (though there doesn't seem to be many cases to support that). So, the wording was changed to make it even more clear that it must be done ON PURPOSE to be an offense. I believe it was a positive change.

User avatar

Zoo
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:47 pm

Re: SB299 to Governor

#39

Post by Zoo » Tue May 28, 2013 7:38 pm

It's not printing unless you use contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height.
The city is not a concrete jungle. It is a human zoo.


cowhow
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Fort Worth
Contact:

Re: SB299 to Governor

#40

Post by cowhow » Tue May 28, 2013 8:29 pm

Zoo wrote:It's not printing unless you use contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height.
I'll add that to my daily style guidlines before I leave the house. :lol: Thanks for the reply guys. I absolutely agree that this bill is a positive step forward. I am highly conscious of accidental exposure anyway, but at least with the advent of this bill I won't have to be so paranoid about it when it does happen. Now to open another can of worms, I wonder if this might also pave the way for another try at open carry in 20015.

User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6258
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: SB299 to Governor

#41

Post by sjfcontrol » Tue May 28, 2013 9:00 pm

cowhow wrote:
Zoo wrote:It's not printing unless you use contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height.
I'll add that to my daily style guidlines before I leave the house. :lol: Thanks for the reply guys. I absolutely agree that this bill is a positive step forward. I am highly conscious of accidental exposure anyway, but at least with the advent of this bill I won't have to be so paranoid about it when it does happen. Now to open another can of worms, I wonder if this might also pave the way for another try at open carry in 20015.
WAY beyond my life expectancy. :mrgreen:
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image


Tracker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:51 am

Re: SB299 to Governor

#42

Post by Tracker » Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:58 am

Hi, I'm new to the forum

Been researching to wrap my head around some the changes.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the
handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9
.

I like scenarios so here's mine. First a factual encounter: Years ago (pre 911 and pre CHL) I went to Love Field to pick up a friend. At that time Love was known for muggings. There were only two flights (in or out) left that evening. My friend was suppose to come in at 9:00pm but ended up arrive on the last flight of the evening at 10:30pm. Consequently, because I was in the terminal before 9:00 I ended up standing around in a vacant terminal. I was the only person to be seen for the next 1 1\2 hours. Boring but condition Green. Then two guys and a gal dressed in cotton track warmups (it was winter) came walking down the hall. Condition Yellow. They stopped about 25 feet away and were obviously checking me out. Condition Orange. One of the guys walked in a half circle to within <9 feet of me - hot Orange - then walked back to the other two and I overheard him say, "I don't think he's worth it." They then left and went back down the hall.

At that time was heavy into weightlifting/bodybuilding so I was in good shape and bigger than these two. Plus, I had left my billfold in the truck. If this guy had made a move I was ready to hit him.
From a legal POV what did these three do that was unlawful? I would think nothing. They went right up to the legal "line in the sand" but didn't cross it.

Change the scenario: Let's say I'm in a similar situation (these days it could be the baggage claim area) but now I'm carrying. In my mind I want to defuse the situation before it gets too "hot". In this wide open terminal he had no need to come that close to me and invade my space. (Today, I could get hit with pepper spray before I have the time to react defensively.)

Question: Suppose I were to intentionally display a holstered firearm as threat of force to these three when they had stopped 25 feet away. Would I be committing a crime? My goal would be to defuse what I believed/perceived to be a threat before it ever got to a condition Red.

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: SB299 to Governor

#43

Post by G26ster » Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:16 pm

I'd say you'd be breaking the law. What justified the use of force in your scenario?

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

User avatar

Jumping Frog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5485
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: SB299 to Governor

#44

Post by Jumping Frog » Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:39 pm

Tracker wrote:Hi, I'm new to the forum
...Change the scenario: Let's say I'm in a similar situation (these days it could be the baggage claim area) but now I'm carrying. In my mind I want to defuse the situation before it gets too "hot". In this wide open terminal he had no need to come that close to me and invade my space. (Today, I could get hit with pepper spray before I have the time to react defensively.)

Question: Suppose I were to intentionally display a holstered firearm as threat of force to these three when they had stopped 25 feet away. Would I be committing a crime? My goal would be to defuse what I believed/perceived to be a threat before it ever got to a condition Red.
First post, so WELCOME.

Every time someone brings up these scenarios, slight changes in the fact pattern can make a huge difference in justification.

If someone simply walks near you in a public place, that is legal behavior, and in the absence of any other circumstances you are clearly not justified in using force.

It is common for people who are new to carry to run various scenarios through their head and ask "When can I shoot?" or "Can I shoot if x happens?"

You also need to realize the fact pattern matters, but it also depends upon how well you can articulate the facts that led you to believe you were in immediate danger from unlawful use of force.

Contrast how these two descriptions paint a different picture:

Description 1: A guy approached me in a parking lot so I pointed a gun at him. I don't know if he was armed.

Description 2: I was in a isolated parking lot with no other cars nearby. I saw the man start walking towards me. I altered course and noted he also altered his course to intercept me. I held my weak hand out in a "Stop" gesture and told him to stay away from me, but he kept approaching. I noticeably placed my strong hand on the grip of my handgun while repeating the "Stop" gesture with my other hand and now telling him, "STOP RIGHT THERE, DO NOT APPROACH ME" in a command voice. He continued coming, now at a brisker pace. I drew my handgun at low ready, and told him "I AM WARNING YOU TO STOP APPROACHING ME OR I WILL SHOOT". He started running towards me. I could not see his hands. I concluded if he was still willing to continue what appears to be an attack in that manner even though he knew I was armed, he must have the means to be deadly himself and had bad intentions. I believed the entire approach to be an imminent robbery. Means, motive, opportunity. I stopped the threat.

Same basic facts but two entirely different articulations.

Think through how you would alter your airport scenario to be able to present additional facts other than someone walking to within 25 feet of you.
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots. Can't we find an electable (R) for 2016?


Topic author
CJD
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:38 pm
Location: Conroe

Re: SB299 to Governor

#45

Post by CJD » Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:42 pm

I'd agree you were breaking the law. Perhaps, at that distance, you could warn them not to come any closer. If they kept coming closer, PERHAPS you could then be justified in threat of force because you could reasonably believe they were attempting robbery. You could probably use the argument you believed they were attempting robbery in your scenario, but you would probably have a harder time fighting that one in court. All of this is just my opinion.

Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”