Senate Bill 299 passes!

[bybotie]

Protects against charges of unlawful carry for the inadvertent or accidental display of a handgun by a Concealed Handgun Licensee.

[big_tiger]

By: Estes, Schwertner S.B. No. 299


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the intentional display of a handgun by a person
licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subsections (a) and (h), Section 46.035, Penal
Code, are amended to read as follows:
(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 [fails to conceal] the handgun in plain
view of another person in a public place.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.
SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only to
an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed
by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the
former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of
this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

The underlined words are marked through in the doc I found.

So we can "accidentally" flash the gun to warn someone to not push their buttons?

[Nash B.]

The underlined words are marked through in the doc I found.

"Fails to conceal" is what's written in the law now. It's not really changing the meaning.

So we can "accidentally" flash the gun to warn someone to not push their buttons?

If you meet this criteria:

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9.

The change in (h) is that now you no longer have to be in a situation where deadly force is justified.

[slow06]

"Fails to conceal" is what's written in the law now. It's not really changing the meaning.

Actually I would say the change from "fails to conceal" to "intentionally displays" is a pretty big change.

IMO under "fails to conceal", if your shirt slides up you go for a ride.
Under "intentionally displays" and the same situation you don't, or at the very least you don't get convicted.
It takes away the punishment for an accident and makes the prosecutor prove intent.

So we can "accidentally" flash the gun to warn someone to not push their buttons?

I would actually say based on the new law that you can do it on purpose, if you meed the force/deadly force criteria in (h). Not saying I would recommend it though.

[Nash B.]

Actually I would say the change from "fails to conceal" to "intentionally displays" is a pretty big change.

It's "intentionally fails to conceal" now, and it would change to "intentionally displays."

[slow06]

It's "intentionally fails to conceal" now, and it would change to "intentionally displays."

You are right, "intentionally" doesn't change. I stand corrected.

But if it did say that.....I was right!

[Chili]

We got a problem here?

[slow06]

picture

I encounter this situation daily in Las Colinas, don't you?

[Chili]

I encounter this situation daily in Las Colinas, don't you?

Haha.. My last apartment was in Las Colinas, well, technically (Royal Ln just east of Beltline).. It was starting to feel a lot more like Crenshaw Blvd on a Saturday night when I moved out in 2005. I pretty much only spend time in LC for work now, and really only around the 114 / O'Connor area.

[slow06]

Haha.. My last apartment was in Las Colinas, well, technically (Royal Ln just east of Beltline).. It was starting to feel a lot more like Crenshaw Blvd on a Saturday night when I moved out in 2005. I pretty much only spend time in LC for work now, and really only around the 114 / O'Connor area.

Yeah I remember a while back you mentioning that you work out there too. Most of what I see is 114/Oconnor as well, still a nice area from what I can tell.

[Chili]

Yeah I remember a while back you mentioning that you work out there too. Most of what I see is 114/Oconnor as well, still a nice area from what I can tell.

Yeah, it's decent there.. Mostly businesses and a few upper scale apartments / condos / gated communities.

The Royal Lane area between beltline and MacArthur went to shit 10 years ago.. The MacArthur / 635 area isn't bad, except for the crime.. Mostly car burglaries, but a shit-ton of them.

[big_tiger]

"Fails to conceal" is what's written in the law now. It's not really changing the meaning.If you meet this criteria:The change in (h) is that now you no longer have to be in a situation where deadly force is justified.

Good, it only makes since you have the option to show what force you can bring, without it being against the law.

Call it the cube clause. lol

[Probie]