TexasCHLforum.com

HB 291 added to OP. Identical to 106 (OC tied to 30.06, dual retention holster required).

premedit8ed wrote:At this point yes everything is a privilege is a million dollar home a right or a privilege? If you commit a crime the goverment can take away your so called "rights" so tell me if it's your right to open carry why don't you instead of waiting for the goverment to grant you that privilege. Exactly

Personally I don't want to just go OC because I will be arrested and taken to jail. The way the law is now, I agree, carrying a handgun outside your property is more of a privilege right now, but that's what we are trying to do - get it back to a Right.

premedit8ed wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

premedit8ed wrote:All open carry really has to do with is people wanting to look "cool" walking around with a gun on their hip.

Um. Not really.

Then why not just get a chl and be done with it. Carrying a handgun Is a privilege not a right. So why does open carry matter to people so much when they can just get a chl.... because they want to be seen with a gun on their hip

Just... No.
Some people see the cost of the class and licensing as extremely burdensome. Which for some people, $200 is quite a bit of money. Then you have to pay to get it renewed. I like having my CHL and will continue to renew even if "Constitutional Carry" passes, just for the reciprocity and express lane when I purchase a firearm.
Your interpretation of the the Constitution is your view, and many have a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
"Because they want to be seen with gun on their hip" - have you ever open carried? IMO, it is much more comfortable to carry OWB without having to worry about your shirt riding up causing mass hysteria. But that's just me.

Bladed wrote:

sbrawley wrote:In the event a 30.07 sign is created, I see a comprisable position for businesses.
30.07 will replace most posted 30.06 signs. Take on an ''out of sight, out of mind" philosophy. Although the anti's will continue to whine because that is what they live for, the majority of carriers will be more accepting knowing that they will still be allowed to carry and since the majority claim that they probably won't OC anyway, it's a win-win.
If a business does happen to post both signs, then everyone will know where they truly stand with firearms.

I don't see this happening. The legislature is highly unlikely to require shop owners who want to ban all guns to post 8+ square feet of signage. The only way we're likely to end up with two different signage requirements is if open carry has either no signage requirement or a very loose signage requirement (e.g., "at least 3 inches in diameter").

I would rather there be a requirement for a specific 3 inch sign than any gunbuster sign making it illegal. If it's any gunbuster sign, there probably wouldn't be a requirement for where it needs to be and size, so it would be easily missed, and if any sign makes it criminal trespassing->misdemeanor, and loss the ability to CC.
If there is a gunbuster sign and you ask me to leave, that's fine, I'll leave and take my business elsewhere. But if it's a misdemeanor and I happened to miss your no guns sticker that is barely visible, ouch. Ouch ouch ouch.

JSThane wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

JSThane wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

Far better, I think, to demand all we want and then "compromise" down, instead of proposing what is, ultimately, a compromise already.

Totally agree.

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

How so? It would be progress and would not cause many, if any, new 30.06 signs. If 30.06 is tied to OC it will cause more postings of 30.06. If you have separate signs then if a business bans OC with a gun busters sign licensed CC is still legal there unless they post 30.06. This also allows property owners the choice of banning one but not other or both together. This actually makes it easier to legislators in order to get their vote.

Be progress? Gunbuster signs are everywhere! I understand that OC and CC should not be tied as far as signage goes, agreed. But if any old sign bans OC, there would basically be no point of trying to OC unless you were going for a walk down the street and back.

G.A. Heath wrote:

JSThane wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

Bladed wrote:At first blush, it looks to me as though both HB 106 by Rep. Flynn and HB 164 by Rep. White create issues regarding signage. Again, I've just glanced at these bills, but it looks to me as though HB 106 would incorporate open carry into PC Sec. 30.06, meaning that businesses that want to prohibit open carry will also have to prohibit concealed carry, and HB 164 creates a separate signage requirement (PC Sec. 30.07) for open carry, meaning that businesses that want to prohibit both open and concealed carry would have to post two large signs (this is highly unlikely to pass).

Unless I'm missing something, HB 195 by Rep. Stickland wisely leaves the signage requirements alone.

Thanks for the heads up on 164, added to the OP. 164 adds licensed open carry, no holster retention requirement, and makes a 30.07 sign. Much better chance of passing than 106.

I've seen 4 Bills so far:

HB 106 by Flynn - Adds licensed open carry with the same restrictions as conceal carry, looks like 30.06 goes for both concealed and open carry. Requires 2 point retention on holster for Open Carry.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB106" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click on the text tab to actually read the bill.

HB 195 by Stickland - Constitutional carry, concealed or openly without a license. Includes definition of intoxicated to be per 49.01 (0.08%). It also looks like they leave in the ability to get a CHL, and that possessing a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, is not probable cause. I cannot tell if they have removed 30.06 either (they leave in the reference for amusement parks, churches, and hospitals, but I do not see the main section for 30.06 in the bill).
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB195" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click on Text to read the actual bill.

HB 164 by White - similar to 106, licensed open carry. Does not have the 2 point retention holster requirement and creates a 30.07 sign just for OC. Best licensed OC bill I think I have read so far.

HB 291 by Huberty - almost word for word the same as 106 - 30.06 goes for OC, 2 point retention holster required as well.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB291" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

106/291 are not passing as-is, since 30.06 is then tied to open and concealed carry. EDIT: 2 point holster requirement is terrible.
195, I think the addition of intoxication definition is a great thing

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Reports/General.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to find all bills listed so far (be sure to hit the 2015 Legislature drop down).