What's concealed now?

[TexasRifleman]

Had this conversation with a few friends the other day, thought I'd throw it up here and see what the thought is.

Note: No way no how I'd advocate doing this, it's a terrible idea, this is just a purely legal question for entertainment and educational purposes only :)


Is this legal concealed carry in Texas under current law? If you think not, post the relevant law please.

[Keith B]

Per the government code

GC §411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
.............
(3) “Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not
openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

So, if a normal person (aka not a LEO) can't tell it's a gun, then it would be legal.

[txpilot]

From the GC, I would say no.

SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN
Sec. 411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) Repealed by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1302, Sec.
14(1), eff. June 14, 2013.
(2) "Chemically dependent person" means a person who
frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence
in alcohol or uses controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to
acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to become
intoxicated or use those substances as often as the opportunity is
presented.
(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of
which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a
reasonable person.

[TexasRifleman]

GC is not criminal law, so it means nothing. How can a police officer arrest me for violating GC? There is no crime, and there is no punishment.
The relevant GC here only exists to establish the administrative rules of how DPS runs the CHL program. I'm confused as to why everyone quotes that section?

The only law in criminal law regarding this is found in PC 46.035 it seems to me.

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 displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

The handgun in the picture is not in plain view so how can the picture not be legal concealed carry? I am having a hard time understanding why people go straight to that GC verbage, how could an LEO or a DA ever apply that to an act?

[Beiruty]

What rifleman said, after the last law change of 2013, there is no more "printing" or any failure to conceal nonsense. Just if you unjustifiably display (for show and tell) in public place in plain view of another person.

1) Where deadly force is justified or you have been physically assaulted, you can produce your firearm.
2) If you are in public area, you can NOT do show and tell or display your firearm to check it or maintain it, etc.
3) If you are in private area or on your property, or in your house, you can open carry, show and tell, and safely manipulate your firearm.

[nightmare69]

So who is going to volunteer to be the test case?

[TexasRifleman]

Test case for what though?

That's the point of my question, name the crime. Police would have to charge you with something, what would it be?

Unless the cops decide to break the law themselves, the only thing I can see here is that a cop asks for your CHL, you show it, and he tells you to have a nice day.

[Beiruty]

Test case for what though?

That's the point of my question, name the crime. Police would have to charge you with something, what would it be?

Unless the cops decide to break the law themselves, the only thing I can see here is that a cop asks for your CHL, you show it, and he tells you to have a nice day.

And add to that there is no penalty for failure to produce a CHL when requested by LEOs.

[Keith B]

GC is not criminal law, so it means nothing. How can a police officer arrest me for violating GC? There is no crime, and there is no punishment.
The relevant GC here only exists to establish the administrative rules of how DPS runs the CHL program. I'm confused as to why everyone quotes that section?

The only law in criminal law regarding this is found in PC 46.035 it seems to me.

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 displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

The handgun in the picture is not in plain view so how can the picture not be legal concealed carry? I am having a hard time understanding why people go straight to that GC verbage, how could an LEO or a DA ever apply that to an act?

The GC sets the standard for 46.035 to be charged with. So to be charged under 46.035 with intentionally displaying the handgun, you would have to first have to meet GC and the the item be discernible as a handgun, THEN they would have to prove that you were intentionally displaying the handgun and the view of it was not accidental.

So, as I said, since you really can't tell what this is, I would say it would not be illegal.

[TexasRifleman]

And add to that there is no penalty for failure to produce a CHL when requested by LEOs.

Not by itself, but in this case PC 46.035 only applies to CHL holders so you might save an arrest by proving you were covered by the statute allowing you to carry your gun covered in nothing but a Cabelas sack.

I think a cop would have reasonable suspicion to ask for a CHL if he saw you basically open carrying with a Cabelas sack, but once you show the CHL he no longer has reason to suspect a crime.

[TexasRifleman]

The GC sets the standard for 46.035 to be charged with.

Hate to be hard headed but what in the world does that even mean?

[Keith B]

The GC sets the standard for 46.035 to be charged with.

Hate to be hard headed but what in the world does that even mean?

OK, there has to be a definition to set the basis for what is concealed and what is not. The GC is that definition/standard.

(3) “Concealed handgun” means a handgun, the presence of which is not
openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person

A reasonable person is someone who would have normal reasoning capabilities; not someone who has been trained to look for those types of things.

Once the determination is made that the handgun is identifiable and it meets the guidelines of not concealed, then 46.035 would come into play and the officer would have to determine you were intentionally displaying the handgun in an unconcealed manner for you to be prosecuted.

[TexasRifleman]

OK, there has to be a definition to set the basis for what is concealed and what is not. The GC is that definition/standard.

That doesn't make any sense to me since the GC 411.171 says "411.171. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:" So that means that the only time that definition applies to anything is when it's used in GC 411.171 and nowhere else. The term "concealed handgun" is not used in the Penal Code at all, and PC also has it's own definitions in PC 46.01 and "concealed handgun" is not in the list so I don't see how you can connect the 2 in any way. If the Penal Code meant to refer to GC it would point back to 411.171 it or define it directly, but it doesn't so there is no such thing as a "concealed handgun" for the purposes of the Penal Code, only a handgun that is illegally "in plain view", not the same thing.

The only reference in Penal Code to GC 411(H) is that to carry as described in PC46.035, one must have a permit issued under the administrative rules in GC411. If you don't have the permit authorized in 411(H) then you are subject to another part of the Penal Code, 46.02 which also uses the EXACT SAME TERM as 46.035 "handgun in plain view".

46.02 "A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which the handgun is in plain view"

How could it be legal for me to "print" on the dashboard of my car with a gun but not to "print" if I have a permit? The Penal Code uses the same term for both permit holders and non permit holders as it refers to a gun being visible.

PC 46.035 has to stand alone it seems to me, without need to refer back to GC411.171. The law means what the law says. Why doesn't Penal Code define the term "concealed handgun" if that term means anything?

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 displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

It seems that the law change in 2013 did this intentionally. If they wanted it to still refer to "easily discernable" or "concealed" they would have written that into the bill.

They even intentionally removed the word "conceal" from the new law.

HB 299 "This bill amends the Texas Penal Code by changing the language from “fail to conceal” to “intentional display.” "

[The Annoyed Man]

Even if it were legal, this is a bad idea. That's all I need to know.

[TexasRifleman]

Even if it were legal, this is a bad idea.

No question, it would be stupid to do it but this just takes it to the extreme. There are less extreme examples of this "printing" crap and the same arguments apply yet people continue to discuss "printing" like there is such a thing.