TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dhoobler wrote:Unless the law says "It is a defense to prosecution" to have a LTC, it is not a defense to prosecution to have a LTC. The law prohibiting carry does not apply to a person with a CHL. No defense to prosecution is needed. No amount of mental gymnastics will alter that fact.

Sorry, but this is wrong. While a deal was cut years ago to use the phrase "not applicable," there is case law that holds the Code means exactly how it reads. Unless a code provision is prefaced with "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." then it's a defense to prosecution. This is why we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007) with language that changed the elements of the offense, rather than battle the DA's association over exceptions, "not applicable," etc.

Chas.

I thought I remembered you saying that once. I kept all my old CHL handbooks and I noticed that the 1997-8 one was where the 46.15 "Do Not Apply" language was added. Are you saying that not using the exacting wording from PC 2.02 for an Exeption was intentional on the part of the Legislature as a compromise? Or was it simply held so later by the courts at the urging of the Harris County DA?

I can't go into detail, but we had a deal and the "other party" partially defaulted. Note that all of TPC §46.15 is under the "Not applicable" heading, including LEO's, judges, etc. In spite of the case law, the real-work impact has been what was desired. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Chas.

dhoobler wrote:Unless the law says "It is a defense to prosecution" to have a LTC, it is not a defense to prosecution to have a LTC. The law prohibiting carry does not apply to a person with a CHL. No defense to prosecution is needed. No amount of mental gymnastics will alter that fact.

Sorry, but this is wrong. While a deal was cut years ago to use the phrase "not applicable," there is case law that holds the Code means exactly how it reads. Unless a code provision is prefaced with "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." then it's a defense to prosecution. This is why we passed the Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007) with language that changed the elements of the offense, rather than battle the DA's association over exceptions, "not applicable," etc.

Chas.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't have the full amendment, but it appears that the mental hospital language added in floor amendment 1 was from HB14. However, it also appears to allow the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. Attorneys with an LTC to carry everywhere a LEO can carry. Again, I cannot see the entire floor amendment and I can't find anything on the second floor amendment.

While the mental hospital provision should not be a problem in concept, it is not germane and someone in the House may well call a point-of-order. However, the provision allowing yet more select LTCs to carry everywhere is precisely why the House refused to concur with Senate changes to HB508 in 2013. This killed the bill. HB435 may suffer the same fate, as well it should.

Chas.

Could the House call for a conference to hash it out and still keep it alive, or would a point-of-order terminate the bill completely/immediately?

The House has three options. They can concur with the amendments meaning the Bill has passed and goes to the Governor. They can refuse to concur and request a conference committee to try to work out a compromise. If they do, then the Bill goes back to the House and Senate for an up or down vote. The third option is a point-of-order that will kill the Bill if it is sustained. There wouldn't be enough time to send it back to committee to fix it in both bodies.

Chas.

ScottDLS wrote:Doesn't the federal government decide if they wish to authorize US Attorneys and AUSA's to carry or not? If they don't already authorize it, why a carve out for Texas? If they do, I could understand legalizing under state law. And the Attorney General of the United States? Really? Why not POTUS?

To my knowledge, U.S. attorneys and assist U.S. attorneys are not federal law enforcement agents, so they cannot be authorized to carry firearms. (I may be wrong.) The AG added to the Bill is the Texas AG, not U.S. Attny. Gen.

Chas.

I don't have the full amendment, but it appears that the mental hospital language added in floor amendment 1 was from HB14. However, it also appears to allow the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. Attorneys with an LTC to carry everywhere a LEO can carry. Again, I cannot see the entire floor amendment and I can't find anything on the second floor amendment.

While the mental hospital provision should not be a problem in concept,it is not germane and someone in the House may well call a point-of-order. However, the provision allowing yet more select LTCs to carry everywhere is precisely why the House refused to concur with Senate changes to HB508 in 2013. This killed the bill. HB435 may suffer the same fate, as well it should.

Chas.