TexasCHLforum.com

Papa_Tiger wrote:Fascinating read on some of what is going on in the Capitol this session:
http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/05/18/7829/

Yes it comes from the liberal rag of the Statesman, but there are some very interesting insights, particularly from the Mexican American Legislative Caucus and others.

You can bet that there will be changes in the way things are done next legislative session.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Absolutely not!!! There's much more at play here, including the ability of any member of the Calendars Committee to "tag" a bill and effectively kill it by delaying it for a period of time. There are five F-rated Democrats on Calendars.

Attacking friends for problems beyond their control is not helpful.

Chas.

Of course. Just trying to get some kind of a perception. Is it a simple matter of the Calendars Committee voting on whether or not to send a bill to the floor? I'm just speaking naively here, but is it a scenario, for example, where they decide which bills go to the floor, King and Hunter voted "aye" and the 5 F-rated Democrats outvoted them.... something like that? I would like to have a better understanding of the process by which a bill actually moves - or doesn't move - from Calendars to the floor. Obviously somebody did - or didn't - do something.

If the Bill were to come to a vote, then it would be on the Floor. The Calendars Committee makeup is A+ = 1, A = 8, A- = 1, F = 5. Any member can "tag" a bill meaning it won't be put to a vote. It's a control mechanism that should not exist.

Calendars should have to meet publicly including standard video. It is designed to be a private black hole and it is. That said, it often works in our favor.

Chas.

A tag is only good for 24-72 hours correct? So if it got to calendars, with theoretically enough time, then those 5 F rated members of the committee could only delay it 15 days, right? Then I would also hold those responsible for delays on voting it out of committee to calendars responsible as well, and from what I have read, that was Phil King.

Calendars does not meet every day, so even a tag was only for 24 - 72 hours, a single "tag" would last a week under a normal schedule. Also, you assume that each member can only tag a bill once.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Absolutely not!!! There's much more at play here, including the ability of any member of the Calendars Committee to "tag" a bill and effectively kill it by delaying it for a period of time. There are five F-rated Democrats on Calendars.

Attacking friends for problems beyond their control is not helpful.

Chas.

Of course. Just trying to get some kind of a perception. Is it a simple matter of the Calendars Committee voting on whether or not to send a bill to the floor? I'm just speaking naively here, but is it a scenario, for example, where they decide which bills go to the floor, King and Hunter voted "aye" and the 5 F-rated Democrats outvoted them.... something like that? I would like to have a better understanding of the process by which a bill actually moves - or doesn't move - from Calendars to the floor. Obviously somebody did - or didn't - do something.

If the Bill were to come to a vote, then it would be on the Floor. The Calendars Committee makeup is A+ = 1, A = 8, A- = 1, F = 5. Any member can "tag" a bill meaning it won't be put to a vote. It's a control mechanism that should not exist.

Calendars should have to meet publicly including standard video. It is designed to be a private black hole and it is. That said, it often works in our favor.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Liberty wrote:

Beiruty wrote: I will not mince words anymore.
This is how politicians screw you up! Why in the world the GOP elected representatives of us, the people, with supermajority in the 3 branches of the Texas government are "COWARDS".

I did not care about 1911, but I cared a lot about the HB 560.
TSRA/NRA has to re-form their endorsements and rating of the nominees for elections.

All we got this year, $6 yearly rebate on our LTC fees.

The problem is these bills are destroyed anonymously. The lowest form of cowardness. We don't know who killed these bills. It's very difficult to hold them accountable.

Kkpsiknl wrote:I just read the substitute version, and then read the analysis of the difference between the original and the cs. My head hurts and I still don't understand.

ScottDLS wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:
...
To date, I am not aware of any LEOs being charged with 30.06/30.07 when carrying on or off duty. It is a non-issue and carve outs are getting old, fast. LTC holders have a proven track record of being more law abiding than police, yet do not get the same carve outs. No more carve outs for cops, unless citizens get them too.

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think cops need a carve out, for the same reason that license holders won't need a carve out under the proposed language. You will not be carrying under the authority of your LTC (if HB1911) passes, because you won't need a LTC to be exempt from 46.02.

On the subject of LEO's charged with 30.06/7....well in 20 years, no CHL/LTC or LEO has ever been convicted of 30.06 or 30.05 (as it relates to handgun carry either).

There was the Section 24 of the Bill posted previously in this thread, that changed the definition of carrying under authority of GC 411 to both licensees and non licensees, but that is not apparently in the latest version.

G.A. Heath wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

What does 30.05 have to do with a 30.06/7 sign? There is no exemption for Peace Officers in 30.06/7 only the fact that it doesn't apply because even if they HAVE a LTC, they are not carrying under it's authority.

I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

tx85 wrote:Houston Police Chief Mr. Acevedo just retweeted this:

ScottDLS wrote:

Russell wrote:I didn't read anything about eliminating 30.06/30.07 for license holders, however I do see this gem:

SECTION 17. Sections 46.15(a) and (b), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) Sections 46.02, [and] 46.03, and 46.035 do not apply to:

[(A)] a license holder [issued] under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, [to carry a handgun;] and is
carrying
[(B)] a handgun:
(A) [(i)] in a concealed manner; or
(B) [(ii)] in a [shoulder or belt] holster;
(7) is at least 21 years of age and:
(A) has not been convicted of a felony;
(B) is fully qualified under applicable federal
law to purchase and possess a handgun;
(C) meets the requirements under Sections
411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code;
(D) is not a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01; and
(E) is carrying a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

Did we just get some of HB 560 added into HB 1911?

First. The bill would appear to eliminate the effect of 30.06/7 by not updating them to include people not carrying UNDER AUTHORITY of LTC.

Second: The above is INDEED helpful for LTC, if I am reading it the same as you.

(a) Sections 46.02, [and] 46.03, and 46.035 do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under
...
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(1) ...
(6) is [carrying:
[(A)] a license holder [issued] under Subchapter
H, Chapter 411, Government Code, [to carry a handgun;] and is
carrying
[(B)] a handgun:
(A) [(i)] in a concealed manner; or
(B) [(ii)] in a [shoulder or belt] holster;
(7) is at least 21 years of age and:
(A) has not been convicted of a felony;
(B) is fully qualified under applicable federal
law to purchase and possess a handgun;
(C) meets the requirements under Sections
411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code;
(D) is not a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01; and
(E) is carrying a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

Russell wrote:I didn't read anything about eliminating 30.06/30.07 for license holders, however I do see this gem:

SECTION 17. Sections 46.15(a) and (b), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) Sections 46.02, [and] 46.03, and 46.035 do not apply to:

[(A)] a license holder [issued] under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, [to carry a handgun;] and is
carrying
[(B)] a handgun:
(A) [(i)] in a concealed manner; or
(B) [(ii)] in a [shoulder or belt] holster;
(7) is at least 21 years of age and:
(A) has not been convicted of a felony;
(B) is fully qualified under applicable federal
law to purchase and possess a handgun;
(C) meets the requirements under Sections
411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code;
(D) is not a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01; and
(E) is carrying a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

Did we just get some of HB 560 added into HB 1911?