HB 2756 Open Carry bill reported favorably

[steveincowtown]

Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?

Had HB 2756 been left as originally drafted there would be no concern about 30.06. It was drafted as constitutional carry with no mention of 30.06 but certain "individuals" got their hands on it in League and changed it to licensed OC. Either way, this preoccupation with extra 30.06 signs is as silly as the blood in the streets talk 15 years ago when CHL got started. Think critically and stop believing everything you're fed.

This has nothing do with what I have been “fed” but what I have actual “read’ in the bill.

I am for OC, and beyond that I am for Constituional Carry. I wish someone with the minds (and lawyers) that the TSRA and the NRA would have worked out a bill before Rep. Lavender's bill came about. It surely would have been better written with fewer chances for confusion.

TSRA MEMBERS have been asking for OC support for years. Their response was that they would not push OC until the members wanted it.

When asked "how do you poll the members to see what they want?" they responded with "there us no official polling method."

So then, I ask, how do they have any clue what Texans want?

And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

Drink the Koolaid if you like but some of us know the truth.

Ok, now that I have been "fed" and "drank the kool aid" in one thread I am full. You can stop now.

This is what I am saying; As the bill stands today, the 30.06 language is bad. Whether it was placed there in the original bill, was placed there covertly by the TSRA, or magically appeared there through some twisted Harry Potter curse, the fact is the language is there. The purpose of the comment was to provide a productive discussion on how to remove this language, not a history lesson on how it got there.

[JJVP]

My opinion on how it "should have been done"
Really, there should be added to the Penal Code Section 30.07 for open carry

1) Then a business wanting to ban "concealed" (but allow open) will still post a 30.06 sign (Seriously, some "anti's want to know by armbands or whatever method, who is armed)

2) A business which allows concealed but prohibits open will post a 30.07 sign but no 30.06 sign

3) Any business wanting to prohibit both concealed and open needs to post 4 signs (2 English and 2 Spanish) for 30.06 and 30.07 about 3 feet by 4 feet tall each

I think that would be ideal; any business with 4 huge signs obviously wants to lose well over 500,000 customers PLUS their families business from their potential customer base.

But, that would have been more work than just using a word processor to search the codes for the word "Concealed" and strike it out everywhere..... However, sometimes it's worth putting forth a bit more effort when drafting legal documents and such ...Just my pinion ...

I had exactly the same thought as you. One 30.06 sign for CHL's and one 30.07 for Open carry.

[baldeagle]

And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

Drink the Koolaid if you like but some of us know the truth.

Prove it.

The archives of committee meetings are publicly available. Provide the link to the one where the language was changed and tell us the time on the video where someone associated with TSRA "fooled with it". I'm betting you can't do it.

Your accusation is slanderous. You'd better back it up. Otherwise you need to rescind it. And no, I'm not a TSRA member.

EDIT: Following up on this, I went to the House website and looked up HB 2756. The bill as introduced included the 30.06 language and was reported favorably without amendment. So Lavender either put the language in the bill himself or was blissfully unaware that someone had changed the language of the bill without his knowledge before he filed it.

The minutes of the committee meeting state that "The chair recognized Representative Lavender to explain HB 2756." So Rep. Lavendar explained the bill to the committee and had to be aware of the 30.06 language.

The witness list does not include anyone from TSRA.

So you've got some 'splainin' to do.

[G.A. Heath]

As it is written now, a 30.06 is required to keep out open carry. If that provision is struck, any gunbuster sign will be sufficient for open carry while a 30.06 will be required for concealed carry. My question is if a 30.06 sign would be one of the many signs that would keep an OC out as well under the updated version. I ask this because the 30.06 sign says it applies to license holders, who will be the only people who OC under the updated version, too.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that:

(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or

(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

(c) In this section:

(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).

(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).

(3) "Written communication" means:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or

(B) a sign posted on the property that:

(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;

(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(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.

It specifically says concealed in 30.06(a)(1)(A) so unless concealed is stricken from 30.06 then it would apply to concealed only. This bill as it currently stands does strike concealed from 30.06

[G.A. Heath]

And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

How did this bill get to what it is now from something that would simply Strike handgun from TPC 46.02, Strike 46.02(a-1), and modify 46.035(a) to apply to licensed/unlicensed carry (or better yet strike it as well)?

[74novaman]

And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

Drink the Koolaid if you like but some of us know the truth.

Prove it.

The archives of committee meetings are publicly available. Provide the link to the one where the language was changed and tell us the time on the video where someone associated with TSRA "fooled with it". I'm betting you can't do it.

Your accusation is slanderous. You'd better back it up. Otherwise you need to rescind it. And no, I'm not a TSRA member.

What is it with OC pushers trying to blame others for their troubles? Your sponsor didn't submit the bill until darn near the last day you could submit a bill. What part of that is TSRAs or anyone elses fault but your own?

[jecsd1]

Steveincowtown, you're right. The purpose of this is a civilized discourse. I do apologize for my tone but I despise hypocrisy. I will not however rescind anything. The information I received is from the horses mouth. No doubt in my mind as to its validity. You all are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

[BradGroux]

I really hope open carry passes, if for no other reason than Houston summers where it is nearly impossible to comfortably conceal a weapon without imprinting.

[74novaman]

You all are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

Saying You all instead of Yall makes me think you must be a yankee brady plant.

Just thought I'd bring a little humor into a thread rapidly turning dark.

But seriously: When you don't submit the bill until the 11th hour in what everyone knew was going to be a busy busy session, how can you honestly claim anyone else is to blame if the bill doesn't get to the floor in time? I seem to recall Mr. Cotton even telling a few people on here who wanted open carry that they needed to get a bill written BEFORE the session so it could be submitted early.

I guess some people would rather not take good advice, then blame other when things go wrong.

[baldeagle]

Steveincowtown, you're right. The purpose of this is a civilized discourse. I do apologize for my tone but I despise hypocrisy. I will not however rescind anything. The information I received is from the horses mouth. No doubt in my mind as to its validity. You all are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

So, according to you, "the horse's mouth" told you that someone from TSRA edited Rep. Lavendar's bill before he filed it and he didn't notice? Because that's what had to have happened for your claim to be true.

You'll pardon me if I am skeptical.

[Charles L. Cotton]

And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

How did this bill get to what it is now from something that would simply Strike handgun from TPC 46.02, Strike 46.02(a-1), and modify 46.035(a) to apply to licensed/unlicensed carry (or better yet strike it as well)?

Good observation and an even better question. How about an answer that doesn't involve black helicopters.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Steveincowtown, you're right. The purpose of this is a civilized discourse. I do apologize for my tone but I despise hypocrisy. I will not however rescind anything. The information I received is from the horses mouth. No doubt in my mind as to its validity. You all are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

Everything you said was false, other than perhaps talking to MR Redneck. Rep. Lavender never told you TSRA or NRA had any input in the bill, as you have implied. Rep. Lavender gave a copy of his bill to TSRA before it was filed and it is exactly the same as HB2756.

One more nasty comment and you're gone and you won't be missed. If you can't discuss an issue with civility, then go back to OpenCarry.org where your demeanor is customary.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Steveincowtown, you're right. The purpose of this is a civilized discourse. I do apologize for my tone but I despise hypocrisy. I will not however rescind anything. The information I received is from the horses mouth. No doubt in my mind as to its validity. You all are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

Who is the other "horse's mouth?" You've identified Rep. Lavender and he never told you any such thing, so give us the name of the author of what you claim is the original version of the bill. If you won't, then why not? Why would anyone want to hide their name if they are writing legislation.

While you're at it, what's your real name? You're good at making false implications and personal attacks while enjoying anonymity, but how about backing up your words with your real identity.

Chas.

[Paragrouper]

I'm not sure I buy into HB2756.

As things stand now, I seldom encounter a 30:06 sign when I am out and about and I believe that part of that is due in part to the "concealed" aspect of the current law. I believe it is likely that more establishments would elect to post signs and "opt-out" as current law permits, if HB 2756 is passed in its current form. I'm more inclined to believe that more thought needs to be put into how to 'effectively' implement such a law before it's put forth and this last minute bill could potentially do more harm than good.



I'm more interested in the outcome of HB681 and SB354.

[steveincowtown]

I'm not sure I buy into HB2756.

As things stand now, I seldom encounter a 30:06 sign when I am out and about and I believe that part of that is due in part to the "concealed" aspect of the current law. I believe it is likely that more establishments would elect to post signs and "opt-out" as current law permits, if HB 2756 is passed in its current form. I'm more inclined to believe that more thought needs to be put into how to 'effectively' implement such a law before it's put forth and this last minute bill could potentially do more harm than good.



I'm more interested in the outcome of HB681 and SB354.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

I am not saying the bill is evil, but if TSRA/NRA/etc. (good men) do nothing on OC, someone will. We are seeing this play out right now. I am 100% for Constituional Carry, but it seems like absent the experts (lawyers and those who lead the charge for CC) crafting a bill that makes sense, bills that endanger our CHL rights will come up. Exhibit A= HB2756

The best defense is a good offense.

(One cliché free with the purchase of greater or equal cliché. Today only)