TexasCHLforum.com

Called Rep John Kuempel (Seguin). Person answering did not know if he had looked at the bill yet. Urged him to sign on to support it. Will stop by their office here in Seguin after Christmas and follow up with them.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: We and TFC may wind up being the only ones pushing hard for this Bill.

Chas.

So TSRA and/or NRA won't throw their shoulders to it? (and I mean hard, not just supportive words).

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have posted an article titled "HB560 by Rep. Springer: The Most Important Self-Defense Bill Since 2007" ...

Chas.

Very helpful!

One small typo nit: In the table "LTC less likely to commit a crime than the general public" the first line under that reads "21 less likely"; it should read "21 times less likely".

The section that laid out the current restrictions is very helpful to me as well.

good job.

mr1337 wrote:

Russell wrote:On a different note, I hope we invest about 90% of our lobbying efforts towards this bill. I am personally way more interested in seeing this pass than constitutional carry this session.

Same. I know that Constitutional Carry is inevitable. It will happen. The question is: "when?"

I think eliminating off-limits locations will be harder if done after CC, even if the legislation only applies to license holders.

I am all in for this bill. If it's the only pro-gun bill that passes this session, I will be a happy camper. If Constitutional Carry passes, I will still be a happy camper. If both pass, that would be awesome.

Yes, exactly.

mr1337 wrote:

ELB wrote:Working my way through the bill in detail...

From HB 560 as filed:

SECTION 1. Section 30.06(e), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity [and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035].

The part in bold italics is in strike-thru font in the bill text.

30.07 has identical language, but it is not amended by the bill. If I understand this correctly, then open carry on certain governmental premises and places if those places fall into 46.03 or 46.035? (e.g. schools and institutions of higher learning?)

The bill would exempt LTC holders from 46.03, and it also repeals much of 46.035.

Code: Select all

 SECTION 11.  The following provisions are repealed:
  	             (1)  Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  	             (2)  Sections 411.203 and 411.204, Government Code;
  	             (3)  Section 52.062(b), Labor Code;
  	             (4)  Section 46.03(f), Penal Code, as amended by
  	Chapters 437 (H.B. 910) and 1001 (H.B. 554), Acts of the 84th
  	Legislature, Regular Session, 2015;
  	             (5)  Sections 46.035(b), (c), (f)(1), (i), (k), and
  	(l), Penal Code; and
  	             (6)  Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, as added by
  	Chapters 1214 (H.B. 1889) and 1222 (H.B. 2300), Acts of the 80th
  	Legislature, Regular Session, 2007.

Yes, but that doesn't directly answer my question. Looking at it again tho, it appears that licensed open carry on colleges, universities, junior colleges etc would still be illegal, which falls in line with Mr. Cotton's earlier analysis that the campus carry stuff was left alone.

Working my way through the bill in detail...

From HB 560 as filed:

SECTION 1. Section 30.06(e), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity [and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035].

The part in bold italics is in strike-thru font in the bill text.

30.07 has identical language, but it is not amended by the bill. If I understand this correctly, then open carry on certain governmental premises would still be illegal if those places fall into 46.03 or 46.035? (e.g. schools and institutions of higher learning?)

z_g_yang wrote:Airport secured area is part of 46.03. Does this mean this Bill allow carrying into secured area of airport?

Going by memory here, but...no.

It just means that the State of Texas will not prosecute you for doing it. Federal regs prohibit bringing a firearm (and probably all other weapons) into the secure area of an airport, but I believe the penalty is civil, i.e. a fine ($10K IIRC). I suspect you could also be banned from flying commercial again, but less certain about that.

My understanding is that when TSA or whoever detects a firearm, they call the local police to come deal with the person who has it. In New York, New Jersey, etc unless you have a license from that state (and from NYC if the airport is in NYC), you go straight to jail. In Texas, since the last Legislature, law enforcement is required to give you (assuming you have an LTC) a chance to take yourself and the gun out of the secure area/away from the checkpoint without arrest.

It appears under HB560, if it passes, local law enforcement will no longer have any reason to arrest you for simply having the gun in the secured area.

Or so it appears to me at the moment, I'm still studying all the parts of this thing.