"Stating" You Are Armed

[Skidzalot]

New to the board and looking for an answer. A friend says his CHL instructor warned his class that any "public statement" made by a CHL holder to the effect that he/she was armed constituted a violation of the law. (I know, I know, but here's the example noted): several friends sitting in a restaurant; someone in the group makes a light-hearted crack about "somebody packing" or something of that nature; CHL holder in the group - in normal, conversational voice says to his friends, "I'm a CHL holder - in fact, I'm carrying a weapon right now."

Not sure who the "complainant" would be in this "offense," but I suppose anyone who overheard the statement. I understand the "intentionally failing to conceal" aspect of the law, but don't recall from my initial class or renewal class that a benign statement among friends constituted a violation. I also didn't find anything in a cursory look at the statutes. Would appreciate any insight or cite of the Ch and pp of the code?

Thanks!

[CoffeeNut]

Editing to add: welcome to the forum and I'm sure you'll have a proper answer shortly.

Interesting question and I look forward to the more knowledgeable answers.

I've been asked by family if I was carrying while going into places (they wanted to know because they forgot theirs) and I assume someone could have overheard. I stopped getting those questions when my answer was always "always".

I would think that unless you were visually showing them that you had the gun on you then you'd probably be just fine legally but the murkiness for me starts when you phrase it "I'm a CHL holder..".

[powerboatr]

I practice "concealed is concealed" verbally falls into that realm.
I figure its no ones business if i am carrying or not as long as I am legal to do so.

[Beiruty]

Afer September 1st, This statement "intentionally failed to conceal" is NOT part of Texas law. Your instructor is incorrect and no law was broken by stating you are armed. I am asked by friends all the time if I am armed. and some challenged me to say the serial number of my EDC off the top my hat.

However, is it wise to be heard by some anti-gun, sitting in the next booth, you talking about your sidearm and later on he would call 911?!!

[sugar land dave]

You did not display your firearm, and wIth friends, I doubt that you had an "intent to cause alarm", thus there should be no violation of law, though perhaps of "common sense".

[Skidzalot]

Appreciate the responses. Generally, if someone asks me if I'm armed, I reply by asking if they're wearing underwear - it's just as personal and none of your business. My close friends assume its a given - most others are not likely to ever know. And the discretion factor comes into play when discussing such things in public places. For clarification, it wasn't my instructor I was quoting, but a friend's instructor. I realize there could have been a communications breakdown, but couldn't help but wonder if maybe I'd missed something.

[kg5ie]

Afer September 1st, This statement "intentionally failed to conceal" is NOT part of Texas law. Your instructor is incorrect and no law was broken by stating you are armed. I am asked by friends all the time if I am armed. and some challenged me to say the serial number of my EDC off the top my hat.

However, is it wise to be heard by some anti-gun, sitting in the next booth, you talking about your sidearm and later on he would call 911?!!

SB 299
Words were changed from "intentionally fails to conceal", to "intentionally displays"

Here is some partial wording:

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.


When I first read the title of your post I thought you were speaking of
PC 9.04 that speaks to display as a threat of force.

I would suggest that you tell no one. Just my opinion.

[Oldgringo]

Hmmm? We may talk about a lot of things when eating out with friends, who's 'packin' has never been one of those subjects. I reckon that's because we're old?

[joe817]

Hmmm? We may talk about a lot of things when eating out with friends, who's 'packin' has never been one of those subjects. I reckon that's because we're old?

Either that or ALL of your friends are packing, and it's a moot point!

[jimlongley]

Hmmm? We may talk about a lot of things when eating out with friends, who's 'packin' has never been one of those subjects. I reckon that's because we're old?

Either that or ALL of your friends are packing, and it's a moot point!

In my 69th year, I still don't feel that old.

The other night at dinner, two couples present, all CHL holders, the conversation had turned to making a play date for the four of us to go shooting, and one of the other couple said "Jim, how many guns do you have?" I started counting on my fingers, and then asked "Wait? Do you mean on me?"

I have been asked a few times if I was carrying, and most of our friends just assume that I am, and most of the time, depending on the group, I have responded truthfully, but I have also been circumspect and answered like "Wouldn't anyone with any sense be?" or "And why do you feel the need to know that?"

I, personally, have never felt that stating that you are carrying was a violation of the letter of the law although the way it was said might violate the spirit.

[Keith B]

Previously the statute could have been interpreted that a verbal disclosure that you were carrying was a failure to conceal. The word conceal has the this definition

con·ceal
kənˈsēl
verb
keep from sight; hide.
"a line of sand dunes concealed the distant sea"
synonyms: hide, screen, cover, obscure, block out, blot out, mask, shroud, secrete More
antonyms: reveal
keep (something) secret; prevent from being known or noticed.
"love that they had to conceal from others"
synonyms: hide, cover up, disguise, mask, veil;

As stated above, SB299 removed the language 'fails to conceal the handgun' and added a much clearer definition of 'intentionally displays the handgun in plain view...' as shown below.

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.

The instructor could have been right previous to the 2013 change, but the statement is no longer valid as a verbal indication to the fact you are carrying does not meet the legal definition of 'intentionally displaying' your handgun. .

[WildBill]

I understand the definition of conceal.

I don't see how any verbal statement could have been interpreted as a failure to conceal a handgun.

[Keith B]

I understand the definition of conceal.

I don't see how any verbal statement could have been interpreted as a failure to conceal a handgun.

Per the definition shown in my post above, to conceal is to hide or keep secret. If you fail to keep it a secret, then you have not concealed. Per the old statute, the only requirement was you must keep it concealed. The new language clarifies the law by stating 'displays' which would not be violated by stating you are armed.

[WildBill]

I understand the definition of conceal.

I don't see how any verbal statement could have been interpreted as a failure to conceal a handgun.

Per the definition shown in my post above, to conceal is to hide or keep secret. If you fail to keep it a secret, then you have not concealed. Per the old statute, the only requirement was you must keep it concealed. The new language clarifies the law by stating 'displays' which would not be violated by stating you are armed.

Keith - I follow your line of thinking. Notice I didn't say your "logic".

I just don't see it that way. I agree that the new language is more clear, but I think the "intentional" display is the part that needed clarification.

If you aren't carrying and say you are, does that mean you are not concealing your handgun?

If OC passes you can just keep the gun concealed and tell everyone you have it! Would that be open carry?

Maybe a good law school topic.

[Keith B]

I understand the definition of conceal.

I don't see how any verbal statement could have been interpreted as a failure to conceal a handgun.

Per the definition shown in my post above, to conceal is to hide or keep secret. If you fail to keep it a secret, then you have not concealed. Per the old statute, the only requirement was you must keep it concealed. The new language clarifies the law by stating 'displays' which would not be violated by stating you are armed.

Keith - I follow your line of thinking. Notice I didn't say your "logic".

I just don't see it that way. I agree that the new language is more clear, but I think the "intentional" display is the part that needed clarification.

If you aren't carrying and say you are, does that mean you are not concealing your handgun?

No. The new law says you must display it, so saying you are wouldn't be illegal anyway. I don't believe it would have been illegal under the old law either, as they couldn't charge you for failing to conceal if you really weren't carrying anything to fail to conceal.

If OC passes you can just keep the gun concealed and tell everyone you have it! Would that be open carry?

No. If open carry passes the language will have to change again because intentionally displaying your handgun will not longer illegal.


Maybe a good law school topic.