If OC passes.

[Bithabus]

Okay....just to stir this up a bit more - someone with more smarts than me explain this:

If you have to have "probable cause" to check to see if someone has a license while they're driving, then why wouldn't the same hold true for stopping someone that's open carrying if the law allows them to do so? Either one requires a license in order to exercise the act.

I don't want to know what SHOULD be, or why it's "wrong" - I'm dealing with the potential realities as the proposed law would create.

Because carrying a handgun is illegal. Driving a car is not illegal. It's true that driving a car without a DL is illegal, but the DL does not give you an exemption to a law. CHL, LE ID, hunting etc.. gives you an exemption to 46.02.

So... a cop sees someone carrying a handgun (off their premises etc): crime!, now he can stop to see if they meet an exemption.

Someone driving a vehicle... maybe a crime, but he has to investigate further to find evidence of a specific violation before he can make a legal stop.

 

[lalonguecarabine]

So, in plain English:
-Openly carrying a handgun will be illegal for the general population.
-Regular citizens will be exempted from this if they have a CHL.
-Anyone openly carrying will need to be determined by LEO to have this exemption (CHL), hence being questioned and IDed.

Is this simplified presumption correct?

 

[Bithabus]

So, in plain English:
-Openly carrying a handgun will be illegal for the general population.
-Regular citizens will be exempted from this if they have a CHL.
-Anyone openly carrying will need to be determined by LEO to have this exemption (CHL), hence being questioned and IDed.

Is this simplified presumption correct?

The Police would not have to stop everyone they notice carrying a handgun in public but they would be justified to do so. This is the case currently. By openly carrying we just increase the chance that a LEO notices our weapon. Once the Officer finds that you are licensed (or have other exemption) the justification for the stop will end.

 

[RCK1999]

Just issue CHL badges to be worn next to OC.

HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE

 

[Renegade]

If you have to have "probable cause" to check to see if someone has a license while they're driving,

Probable Cause is not required:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall
1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

 

[Bithabus]

Probable Cause is not required:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY.
(a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall
1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

State Appellate courts have invalidated 521.025 (b)

 

[MR Redneck]

Oh man im lovin this.

 

[jocat54]

State Appellate courts have invalidated 521.025 (b)

Not trying to argue, but could you post a link to that. I've been looking and couldn't find anything.

 

[Bithabus]

Not trying to argue, but could you post a link to that. I've been looking and couldn't find anything.

Here's one: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

 

[lalonguecarabine]

Just issue CHL badges to be worn next to OC.

HOW COOL WOULD THAT BE

 

[M. Sage]

Because carrying a handgun is illegal. Driving a car is not illegal. It's true that driving a car without a DL is illegal, but the DL does not give you an exemption to a law. CHL, LE ID, hunting etc.. gives you an exemption to 46.02.

So... a cop sees someone carrying a handgun (off their premises etc): crime!, now he can stop to see if they meet an exemption.

Someone driving a vehicle... maybe a crime, but he has to investigate further to find evidence of a specific violation before he can make a legal stop.

Stop. Back up.

Carrying a handgun without a license is illegal.

Driving a car without a license is illegal.

They're not the only ones who are having serious trouble seeing the difference.

 

[Bithabus]

Stop. Back up.

Carrying a handgun without a license is illegal.

Driving a car without a license is illegal.

Technically this is incorrect.

Carrying a handgun (outside of the areas specified in 46.02) is illegal. A CHL gives us an exemption.

Driving a car is not illegal. This is why cops can't pull over anyone they see driving a car. We need a DL in order to drive legally, but the DL does not make us exempt to a "no driving" law.

Subtle difference but important.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Okay....driving a car is illegal if not licensed. The license gives us an exemption.

Because when you get right down to it, a car is actually pretty heavily regulated. It must be registered and inspected annually. It must be insured at all times. Only licensed drivers are allowed to operate it.

I ain't tryin' to beat a dead horse, but I personally think that it won't take long before cops either tire of asking folks for their licenses, or some PD's get hit with harrassment suits....

 

[nalioth]

I ain't tryin' to beat a dead horse, but I personally think that it won't take long before cops either tire of asking folks for their licenses, or some PD's get hit with harrassment suits....

That time frame would greatly depend upon the number of actual licensees electing to carry openly.

 

[TexasRedneck]

That time frame would greatly depend upon the number of actual licensees electing to carry openly.

That, and how many unlicensed would attempt to carry. If they strike out with every check, it'll get old quickly...

 

[Renegade]

Here's one: Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Thanks I was unaware of that. I see that it is recent and is from a lower court, and thus not binding all over the state (only binding in the Amarillo area). Do you have anything from The Texas Court of Appeals? I do not think that ruling is binding in the other 13 jurisdictions. I will ask around myself.

 

[M. Sage]

Technically this is incorrect.

Carrying a handgun (outside of the areas specified in 46.02) is illegal. A CHL gives us an exemption.

Driving a car is not illegal. This is why cops can't pull over anyone they see driving a car. We need a DL in order to drive legally, but the DL does not make us exempt to a "no driving" law.

Subtle difference but important.

I don't see where the difference would matter from a 4A standpoint. In either case, the police officer would have to be able to articulate a reason why they believed you did not have a license in order to detain you and force you to present it.

 

[txinvestigator]

I don't see where the difference would matter from a 4A standpoint. In either case, the police officer would have to be able to articulate a reason why they believed you did not have a license in order to detain you and force you to present it.

I do not believe that to be the case.

 

[tweek]

If he sees an inadvertant flash of your concealed handgun, that is not unlawful either. But once he becomes aware that you are engaged in an act the the penal code proscribes, he can investigate that act.

I've meant to ask about this a few times. After reading the law over several times I am pretty confident that if I accidently show my unmentionable in public I won't have broken the law. However, peoples constant concern about things like printing or accidental display makes it confusing. Yeah, I'd prefer that nobody be aware that I'm armed, but given the choice between being armed with some printing or being unarmed - I'll take armed.

I'll tell you something else that will happen with OC. More places will post 30.06. Right now business owners have no way of knowing when a person is carrying inside their business. "out of sight means out of mind".

I think 30.06 signs need to go away for publicly accessible businesses - malls, stores, resturants, etc. An office building isnt publicly accessible but I don't think they should have them either but it's a harder argument to make.

 

[txinvestigator]

I've meant to ask about this a few times. After reading the law over several times I am pretty confident that if I accidently show my unmentionable in public I won't have broken the law. However, peoples constant concern about things like printing or accidental display makes it confusing. Yeah, I'd prefer that nobody be aware that I'm armed, but given the choice between being armed with some printing or being unarmed - I'll take armed.

The law is clear; it is a violation to intentionally fail to conceal. Intent is defined in the penal code. I am with you on this.

I think 30.06 signs need to go away for publicly accessible businesses - malls, stores, resturants, etc. An office building isnt publicly accessible but I don't think they should have them either but it's a harder argument to make.

Disagree. A private business owner can and should be able to regulate and control access to his property.