HB 2756 Open Carry bill reported favorably

[JKTex]

Still legal when "traveling" always has been.

I know we're off topic here, but briefly, can you elaborate? I can assume you mean in a car, but I won't assume so, can you elaborate considering a handgun in a car still must be out of plain view. Or, point me to the law and or situation you're referring?

[Beiruty]

Still legal when "traveling" always has been.

I know we're off topic here, but briefly, can you elaborate? I can assume you mean in a car, but I won't assume so, can you elaborate considering a handgun in a car still must be out of plain view. Or, point me to the law and or situation you're referring?

Many Texans do open carry while "traveling". Someone will post the code for traveling exception.

[hirundo82]

Still legal when "traveling" always has been.

I know we're off topic here, but briefly, can you elaborate? I can assume you mean in a car, but I won't assume so, can you elaborate considering a handgun in a car still must be out of plain view. Or, point me to the law and or situation you're referring?

The traveling exception to UCW is longstanding and does not require concealment, as opposed to the new (2007) car carry exception.

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is traveling;

[sherlock7]

Charles, That was extremely well said. I support your position.

Thanks!

[Judge]

Since I was refrained from opening another thread on this topic....Is there a way to make this subject a POLL ONLY?

Just to get the feeling of how us CHL holders are standing?

Thanks

[Keith B]

Since I was refrained from opening another thread on this topic....Is there a way to make this subject a POLL ONLY?

Just to get the feeling of how us CHL holders are standing?

Thanks

You can open a separate poll, but please keep discussion in one (this) thread so all members are viewing and discussing on the same topic.

[flintknapper]

"Keith B" wrote:

OK, now you're nitpicking.
My 'except under certain conditons...etc.' above covers those not mentioned. But you have to agree that 'in general' open carry is illegal in Texas.

I prefer to think I am being thorough and factual.

As to your point, (until recently) ALL carry was unlawful "except for certain conditions". So if we can manage to gain back carry (concealed), then we can manage to gain back (Open) as well.

Remember, this is a RIGHT lost/forfeited back in the 1870's. We need to get it BACK! Everyone should be on board with that. We just need to do it smartly!

[Judge]

I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded.

If you really mean this statement, then I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. It has nothing to do with "personal preference" other than 461,000+ CHLs would prefer that TPC §30.06 not be amended so they would not be barred from entering business establishments that wanted to ban only open-carry. This is not a minor issue.

So you speak for all CHL holders?

[JKTex]

The traveling exception to UCW is longstanding and does not require concealment, as opposed to the new (2007) car carry exception.

Ah, I got it. Remaining off topic, doesn't that go back, pre-2007 to the issue of defining traveling? And the issue with some LEA's who committed to taking you for a ride and letting the DA work it out?

Just curious, so I digress.

[flintknapper]

I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded.

If you really mean this statement, then I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. It has nothing to do with "personal preference" other than 461,000+ CHLs would prefer that TPC §30.06 not be amended so they would not be barred from entering business establishments that wanted to ban only open-carry. This is not a minor issue.


So you speak for all CHL holders?

Ummmm, do you have access to some poll the rest of don't, or have you made an assumption?

Who is actually speaking for ALL CHL holders here?

[hirundo82]

The traveling exception to UCW is longstanding and does not require concealment, as opposed to the new (2007) car carry exception.

Ah, I got it. Remaining off topic, doesn't that go back, pre-2007 to the issue of defining traveling? And the issue with some LEA's who committed to taking you for a ride and letting the DA work it out?

Just curious, so I digress.

Traveling not being defined has always been an issue. That is why in my opinion it is safer to keep it concealed even if you believe you are travelling, until such time as the concealment requirement in §46.02(a-1) is repealed.

[Judge]

People are going to say, do and try anything they can to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise prevent OC.


Just SAY'n.

[SA-TX]

If TPC §30.06 is amended as currently written, any business that wants to prohibit open-carry will be forced to prohibit concealed-carry also, even if that is not what they want to do. However, if TPC §30.06 is not amended and open-carry is subject to the "regular" trespass code provisions in TPC §30.05, then a business can post a generic "no guns" sign or decal to ban open-carry. This gives both the business owner and CHL's options. If one is carrying openly and sees a generic "no guns" sign/decal, they can simply cover their gun with their shirt or other garment and continue into the building. Why would any open-carry supporters oppose having this option?

Chas.

I, for one, like this proposal. Sure constitutional carry is the ultimate objective and it is sad that we haven't been able to advance as far as OK an FL but it is better than nothing and time is running out for the session. For me OC isn't about shopping or dining or showing off. It is mostly about having an option when concealing isn't convenient or comfortable. Motorcycling comes to mind as an example. It is usually hot, jackets can be tight or can move due to the wind, IWB can be restricted depending on the bike. Would this cause terror on the highways of our great state? I don't think so. Fishing is another example. casting can be restricted due to the covering garment.

I'll take it. SA-TX

[JKTex]

People are going to say, do and try anything they can to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise prevent OC.


Just SAY'n.

There's a huge leap between "prohibit, restrict or otherwise prevent OC" and not want to see an OC runaway train that while it may reach it's destination as the OC supporters want, can do massive collateral damage.

A lot of people put in a lot of effort over a long time to get the CHL and start to get the ship turning in the right direction to have a renegade come along and drop a bomb that throws us back 20 years. I fully support OC, but not at the risk that HB2756 as written brings.

[JKTex]

If TPC §30.06 is amended as currently written, any business that wants to prohibit open-carry will be forced to prohibit concealed-carry also, even if that is not what they want to do. However, if TPC §30.06 is not amended and open-carry is subject to the "regular" trespass code provisions in TPC §30.05, then a business can post a generic "no guns" sign or decal to ban open-carry. This gives both the business owner and CHL's options. If one is carrying openly and sees a generic "no guns" sign/decal, they can simply cover their gun with their shirt or other garment and continue into the building. Why would any open-carry supporters oppose having this option?

Chas.

I, for one, like this proposal. Sure constitutional carry is the ultimate objective and it is sad that we haven't been able to advance as far as OK an FL but it is better than nothing and time is running out for the session. For me OC isn't about shopping or dining or showing off. It is mostly about having an option when concealing isn't convenient or comfortable. Motorcycling comes to mind as an example. It is usually hot, jackets can be tight or can move due to the wind, IWB can be restricted depending on the bike. Would this cause terror on the highways of our great state? I don't think so. Fishing is another example. casting can be restricted due to the covering garment.

I'll take it. SA-TX

You might want to look at FLA. Things didn't go quite like they'd hoped, and they're actually still stuck with unintentional exposure being a crime. They are a good example of a poorly written bill as they got what they asked for, and it's not want they wanted. I didn't realize OK had any OC or Constitutional carry legislation in the works. Interesting.

Once the right bill is in place, and timing is right, and the effort is primed and ready, Texas could advance but that hasn't happened yet, and for good reason. Charles has explained the legislative strategy and why things have been done the way they have. See his long post a few pages back.