TexasCHLforum.com

[/quote]Sabine County Sheriff's Office:
http://www.dailynewsandmore.com/news/de ... 31e08.html[/quote]

Deputy Miller explained that until January 1, the handgun must be concealed. There can't be a noticeable outline under garments or handbags.
"If you can distinguish it is a gun, that is not concealed," Miller said.

This is exactly why we needed open carry. Current law notwithstanding, the wording "noticeable outline" is open to interpretation by the Police Officer and I don't have 5K to drop on a Lawyer to prove differently.

DEB wrote:Sabine County Sheriff's Office:
http://www.dailynewsandmore.com/news/de ... 31e08.html

Deputy Miller explained that until January 1, the handgun must be concealed. There can't be a noticeable outline under garments or handbags.
"If you can distinguish it is a gun, that is not concealed," Miller said.

This is exactly why we needed open carry. Current law notwithstanding, the wording "noticeable outline" is open to interpretation by the Police Officer and I don't have 5K to drop on a Lawyer to prove differently.

I saw that too, kind of made me chuckle. Considering the population of his entire county still doesn't add up to a small city, I'm not terrible concerned by them.

DEB wrote:

Sabine County Sheriff's Office:
http://www.dailynewsandmore.com/news/de ... 31e08.html[/quote]

Deputy Miller explained that until January 1, the handgun must be concealed. There can't be a noticeable outline under garments or handbags.
"If you can distinguish it is a gun, that is not concealed," Miller said.

This is exactly why we needed open carry. Current law notwithstanding, the wording "noticeable outline" is open to interpretation by the Police Officer and I don't have 5K to drop on a Lawyer to prove differently.[/quote]

Then the deputy should become familiar with SB 299 passed in 2013 as that stipulates that a handgun must be in plain view in order to not be concealed. There's no such thing as printing anymore, and nothing in the law which says anything about being distinguished: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00299F.htm

More Texans responding.

Police Chief urges education:
http://www.moorecountyjournal.net/open- ... education/

Texas Bankers Association:
http://www.texasbankers.com/web/Advocac ... 4df541ccfe

oljames3 wrote:More Texans responding.

Texas Bankers Association:
http://www.texasbankers.com/web/Advocac ... 4df541ccfe

From the banker site referring to 30.07 signs:
"First, the business can post the statutory language. If posting the statutory language, there is not only no size requirement for the sign, there is also no requirement that the sign be in English and Spanish."

Huh? Am I missing something, as I thought that there were requirements identical to that for 30.06 signage?

Glockster wrote:From the banker site referring to 30.07 signs:
"First, the business can post the statutory language. If posting the statutory language, there is not only no size requirement for the sign, there is also no requirement that the sign be in English and Spanish."

Huh? Am I missing something, as I thought that there were requirements identical to that for 30.06 signage?

Nope, not missing anything. Your thought is one of the main reasons for this thread. It is important for us to know what our fellow Texans are saying about LTC, regardless of whether it is correct or not.

More Texans responding.

Rep. Tinderholt dispels campus carry myths
http://m.theshorthorn.com/news/rep-tind ... 61ba5.html

Dade Phelan is Texas House Member Representative for District 21
http://www.orangeleader.com/2015/10/11/ ... arry-laws/

New Boston PD to host open carry seminar
http://bowiecountynow.com/articles/2015 ... ry-seminar

""If you can distinguish it is a gun, that is not concealed," Miller said."

Right, but if all that can be "distinguished" is a lump, don't sweat it.

Dade Phelan wrote in "The Orange Leader" dated October 11, 2015 an article that seems to contain some errors.

Bullet Point: The same premises restrictions apply for open carry as they do for concealed carry. A permit holder may not carry a firearm: On the premises of a hospital or nursing home (unless licensee has written authorization) -

Not so, unless the hospital is posted with a 30.06 sign...

Bullet Point: On the premises of a church, synagogue, or other place of worship -

Not so, unless posted with a 30.06 sign

I called the phone number listed in his article to discuss the above, but got voice mail.

Abraham,
Good job on pointing out their errors. I've found email seems to be the easiest and most effective way to get word to them. I've responded via email when possible and usually get a response.

Abraham wrote:""If you can distinguish it is a gun, that is not concealed," Miller said."

Right, but if all that can be "distinguished" is a lump, don't sweat it.

It doesn't matter if it can be distinguished (supposedly) as a gun as 46.035 that it must be"intentionally" displayed "in plain view" to be in violation. So there is no such thing as whether or not a handgun can be distinguished (hence why "printing" is no longer an issue).

Glockster wrote:

oljames3 wrote:More Texans responding.

Texas Bankers Association:
http://www.texasbankers.com/web/Advocac ... 4df541ccfe

From the banker site referring to 30.07 signs:
"First, the business can post the statutory language. If posting the statutory language, there is not only no size requirement for the sign, there is also no requirement that the sign be in English and Spanish."

Huh? Am I missing something, as I thought that there were requirements identical to that for 30.06 signage?

They are wrong, it is in plain language in the enrolled version of HB910 that is have 1" contrasting letters and be in both english and spanish. They just cannot (or don't want to) read properly.

Now, the part in blue is different from 30.06...

(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07,
Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this
property with a handgun that is carried openly"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.

mojo84,

Thanks.

I emailed him with my discoveries.

Actually, I found others in the article, like "Conceded Handgun License" instead of "Concealed" which the paper could very well have misprinted (I did mention that in the email to him, though I don't know how germane mentioning it is, other than to help clear up confusion as to what CHL stands for...) and a few other very minor errors, that I didn't bother to mention.

How some UT students are responding:

http://concealednation.org/2015/10/cock ... -in-texas/

City government responding:
http://www.easttexasnews.com/Enterprise ... 5/114.html

I sure most of y'all have seen the latest response from some UT Austin students. I have seen some responses to the UTA protest that purport to be from gun-rights folks which I find disturbingly uncivil. While both extremes are counter-productive, it is probably beneficial for us to be aware of them. Google <texas "open carry">, if you are interested. You can't miss it.