TexasCHLforum.com

Bladed wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

We're verging on territory better left to lawyers and/or the courts, but it's worth noting that the Texas Penal Code doesn't say anything about the premises of an independent school district; it prohibits guns on the premises of "a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution." This raises the question of whether "school or educational institution" refers to the nature of the property or the ownership of the property. For example, what if an independent school district invests in income properties unrelated to education--do each of those properties become statutory gun-free school zones under Texas law?

I'm fairly confident that you will lose that argument in court. And lose badly.

ISD's are "educational institutions", clear as day.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

Cross posting from the "2 Gunmen" thread...

So... If the terrorists managed to get past law enforcement last night, the folks inside the building were statutorily disarmed.
The building is Garner ISD "premises", I believe.
Does this reality add any impetus to HB 308 at all?

Any news on when the Senate will reconsider the House Amendments?
I don't see it on the Senate calendar.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Calendar ... S&ForLeg=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mr1337 wrote:It's going to be tough getting these liberals out of office though. Austin is a melting pot of people from all over (yes, mostly Commiefornia) trying to change the laws to reflect those of where they came from.

This is satire... if you can make it through to the end...
VMI77 posted it in another thread earlier today, but it fits here...

Makes the point quoted above.

[video][/video]

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:

The Wall wrote:That title makes it sound like that was the only reason for the amendment.

It was, according to Dutton (the amendment's author):

Amendment once again raises specter of ‘constitutional carry’ in Legislature’s open carry debate

Some have suggested that the amendment could, in effect, allow for the unlicensed open carry of handguns. That’s because someone open carrying without a license – illegally – wouldn’t need to fear police questioning if they were otherwise doing no wrong.

Dutton said on Tuesday that his intent had nothing to do with unlicensed open carry – but instead with safeguarding against racial profiling.

“If you see black guys with open carry, I didn’t want them stopped because they happened to be black guys exercising their right to open carry,” said Dutton, who voted against the overall open carry bill. “That was my concern.”

I don't read Dutton's comments to mean it's intended to over "constitutional"carry. Seems to me like he is saying he didn't want minorities to be harassed just because they are wearing a gun openly.

I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

I'm more worried about real bad guys carrying concealed than I think I'll ever be about anyone carrying openly.
People are just making hay.

G.A. Heath wrote:Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

I got a malicious page warning from AVAST. Just FYI.

Definitely painfully bad editing.

K5GU wrote:

jmra wrote:

stash wrote:I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor this morning re the Texas house passage of Licensed OC. Among other things, the article indicated that the legislature opted to require a special open-carry permit for which owners would have to apply. I don't recall seeing anything about a special open carry permit in SB17 or HB910 or amendments put forth on Fri. Did I miss something or what?

No. The current CHL is the only requirement. That same misinformation was in a Yahoo article. Don't know where it's coming from.

Here's the article I just saw. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... long-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I sent an email to that staff writer suggesting he check his sources again and print an accurate corrected article.

Hopefully you reminded him that Texas is not the "Long" Star State?

The state of high plains drifters and urban cowboys has long been skeptical about open-carry of handguns, making the Long Star State more like New York than Arizona when it comes to guns out in the open. That’s now changing.

Looks to me that Amendment 9 (local preemption in cities with >750,000) was adopted into Amendment 8, but Amendment 8 was tabled and did not pass. The only Amendment to HB 910 that passed was Amendment 18, making a 30.06 violation a Class C unless "after entering the property, the license holder received notice..... and failed to depart".

Unless I'm mistaken, the Senate (SB 17) version of the Bill made it through the House with only this one Amendment.

SB 17 passed the Senate on 17-March and the House received it from the Senate on 18-March.
On 26-March the House considered and "Reported Favorably" SB 17 as a Committee Substitute for HB 910.
Therefore, as of 26-March, SB 17 = HB 910

Reported favorably as substituted 03/26/2015
Committee substitute considered in committee 03/26/2015

Since SB 17 and HB 910 were "identical", only House Amendment 18 would need to be resolved/approved by the Senate.