TexasCHLforum.com

Side-by-side comparisons of the introduced and substituted versions are here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00910H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RPBrown wrote:NOW THE FUN BEGINS,
I just got an alert that HB 910 has now been sent to Calenders. Lets see if it gets any movement.

Good. thx for the heads-up.

p.s. it appears the committee substitute text is up now. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so the discussion devolves into what each persons thinks is a good idea, but still no good answers as to why the statute should specify how to carry. If license there be, license to carry, not license to "carry like this." It works well in other states.

I'm sure it's too late to fix now, but the point is the law should be no more restrictive than absolutely necessary when exercising a right, and should provide no hooks for harassing gun owners. Recall that when the Leg tried to fix the "traveling" problem by authorizing guns in cars, it was "clear" to certain prosecutors that gun in your car was still certainly PC for arrest. Jurisdictions that don't like OC are going to comb the law very carefully if it passes, and you can bet "holster" will be interpreted very narrowly. Unless putting in "belt and shoulder holster" bought enough votes to get passage (and I doubt that), it is an unnecessary own goal.

gljjt wrote:

ELB wrote:Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?)

If you don't have a holster, and a handgun is visible, LE has PC to make a stop. Gangbanger.

If that's true, that's a lousy reason. And exactly the reason the specification should not be in the law. It criminalizes something that in itself is not criminal, and restricts people who are not criminals. It's like saying tattoos are PC for gangbangers, or a NRA ball cap is PC for checking someone for guns at a basketball game.

I am also concerned that the holster I prefer, the Raven Concealment Systems Vanguard2, will be thought by some to not be a holster for the purposes of OC because it covers only the trigger guard (which is attached to the belt by a snapped strap). Only the strap part of the holster is visible, and so I am concerned that some cops may think I do not have a holster at all (which, by the way, should not be a legal problem either). I don't plan to OC much, but it would very nice to know that I could carry like I normally do but take off my outer shirt or jacket on occasion and not have to worry about the law.

I will be happy, even ecstatic if the OC law in its present form passes, but the specification for "belt or shoulder holster" presents an unnecessary complication. Other states do OC just fine without specifying this. Why was this ever put in there in the first place? (Is this some consequence of the OCT/OCTC antics?) In Indiana, I believe, the law is entirely silent on carry method -- there is no "concealed" or "open" carry, there is simply a license to carry handgun. If we have to have a license that is all it should be. I hope we can clean this up in the future.

I just called Rep Phillips' office, and the nice lady there said that once SB17 is assigned (presumably to the HS &PS Committee), it will heard in committee without taking testimony, and then when HB910 comes up on the calendar, SB17 will be substituted. I noted that SB17 hasn't actually been assigned yet; she said next week the budget will start to be considered, and she expects things to start happening faster then and SB17 will move along. (I would think the budget would jam things up, but I defer hopefully to her).

Goody.

TVGuy wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I see the Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to meet again next Tuesday, 3/24. Are we expecting a vote on OC and Campus Carry bill in that meeting?

I just checked the schedule for this committee on 3/24 and it is not on the schedule.

I think that list is only new items. I could be wrong but the top line says "pending items and:" then lists the other bills.

Yes, the pending items includes bills previously left pending. On 3/17 the committee hearing notice listed only HB910 and HB937, which were being looked at for the first time, but during the meeting they handled five other bills that had previously been considered. Some got voted out of committee, some were left pending again.