TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. There's no way that Rep Nevarez would be willing to take the teeth out of 30.06 without some ulterior motive. Since the Kory Watkins stunt painted him as the Mom's poster-boy he's itching to find a way to stick it to Texas gun owners.

If an F-rated anti-gun Democrat promotes removing penalties for gun-related crimes, warning flags should be waiving!

Remember also that OCT wants all signage for open-carry and concealed carry to be the same. They want to force businesses to either allow everyone or no one to carry. SB342, the alleged "OCT bill," guts TPC §30.06 and applies it to both open and concealed carry. It's no surprise that they testified that removing the penalty would cause OCT to support HB2405. Some OCT "members" have taken to twitter to attack Alice Tripp and TPC §30.06 as attacking private property rights.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

RHenriksen wrote:

bigity wrote:Missed this until just now and am sending faxes, not sure when the committee meets so hopefully it's not too late.

I was told by one office that the committee was meeting this morning, so you & I may both have been too late.

K5GU wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB2405 is scheduled for a public hearing tomorrow, April 7th. Oppose this terrible bill!!!

Please call every member of the Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee and respectfully ask them to oppose Rep. Nevarez's HB2405. It would gut Tex. Penal Code §30.06. TPC §30.06 worked well for property owners and CHLs for almost 18 years and there is no reason to go back to 1995 when it was easy for a CHL to miss a "no guns" sign and inadvertently violate Texas trespass laws.

Note: Rep. Nevarez is Vice-Chairman of this committee, so it won't do much good to call him, other than letting him now we oppose his anti-gun bill.

Chas.

Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee:

Rep. Larry Phillips - Chairman (512) 463-0297
Rep. Poncho Nevárez - Vice-Chairman (512) 463-0566
Rep. DeWayne Burns (512) 463-0538
Rep. Tony Dale (512) 463-0696
Rep. Eric Johnson (512) 463-0586
Rep. Will Metcalf (512) 463-0726
Rep. Joe Moody (512) 463-0728
Rep. Molly S. White (512) 463-0630
Rep. John Wray (512) 463-0516

And since the proposed sign in this bill would omit "concealed", which would conflict with written notice amendments in the proposed licensed open carry bills now being considered, and if passed cause confusion and result in more work and costs for businesses, and for the DPS, right?