HB 2756 Open Carry bill reported favorably

[Purplehood]

I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license.

You lost me right there, Sir. I certainly hope that that is not the case. It shouldn't be an issue in the first place, but for now, it is a violation of the law.

[johnferg69]

Help me out here. Unlike most of you I'm not a member of the BAR so I have a question. I read what I think was the HB2756 bill. It was on the legis.state.tx.us website so it may not be the one everyone commiting on. It looks like they just took the CC law and marked out "concealed" so it would read "carry a handgun". How would this possibly ban conceal carry? If it possibly bans conceal carry because its not expressly written wouldn't it possible ban open carry too because open carry is not expressly written?

The problem is the way the bill is written, it would be for LICENSED open carry. Once the word got out that people are going to be able to carry handguns in plain view, then many locations will be looking for how to keep them from doing it. And, the 30.06 would be valid for both concealed and open carry, so when they post the sign, it will prohibit ANY carry in the location. So, as written the bill is not a good option for CHL'ers.

Where in this bill does it say "licensed open carry"? All I've read is "carry a handgun".

[johnferg69]

I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license.

You lost me right there, Sir. I certainly hope that that is not the case. It shouldn't be an issue in the first place, but for now, it is a violation of the law.

I humbly submit to you, Sir, people speed, record copy-righted movies that they let others borrow and rip tags off mattresses too. LOL
Do you really think no one carries that don't have a CHL? Yes, they are breaking to law in this case but not all are doing it with bad intent.

[Purplehood]

I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license.

You lost me right there, Sir. I certainly hope that that is not the case. It shouldn't be an issue in the first place, but for now, it is a violation of the law.

I humbly submit to you, Sir, people speed, record copy-righted movies that they let others borrow and rip tags off mattresses too. LOL
Do you really think no one carries that don't have a CHL? Yes, they are breaking to law in this case but not all are doing it with bad intent.

Lets stay on track. You said "lots of people", and that is what I would dispute and have seen no evidence to support that. Do I honestly think that folks carry without a license? Yes. But I doubt that "lots" of them do so.

[pcgizzmo]

Help me out here. Unlike most of you I'm not a member of the BAR so I have a question. I read what I think was the HB2756 bill. It was on the legis.state.tx.us website so it may not be the one everyone commiting on. It looks like they just took the CC law and marked out "concealed" so it would read "carry a handgun". How would this possibly ban conceal carry? If it possibly bans conceal carry because its not expressly written wouldn't it possible ban open carry too because open carry is not expressly written?

The problem is the way the bill is written, it would be for LICENSED open carry. Once the word got out that people are going to be able to carry handguns in plain view, then many locations will be looking for how to keep them from doing it. And, the 30.06 would be valid for both concealed and open carry, so when they post the sign, it will prohibit ANY carry in the location. So, as written the bill is not a good option for CHL'ers.

I still don't see if the 30.06 sign was enough to deter posting for concealed carry why it wouldn't be enough to deter open carry. If it's too big of a problem for companies that want to keep out legal citizens carrying concealed guns to post 30.06 signs today what makes anyone think just because open carry might pass there going to be any more apt to post 30.06 signs?

People are lazy by nature. They know in the back of their head that people can carry today yet they don't take the time to post 30.06 signs and I doubt even w/OC your it's to be like the old west. We have examples from other parts of the country that are OC and it's just not that way.

To answer the question posted earlier about if I was around when CHL's were first passed "Yes" I was 21 at the time. I honestly don't remember signs I"m sure there were some but where are those same signs today? Why didn't the store owners replace all the gun buster signs w/30.06 signs? Surely if you REALLY wanted to keep someone w/a gun out you wouldn't care that the sign was a little big and had to be worded properly. I rarely see any gun buster signs and I've only seen one 30.06 sign and I live in DFW and go a lot of places.

Let me just say that I certainly understand being afraid to lose something you already have a the ability to do. I can understand that people are afraid that it's going to be harder for CHL'ers to carry if OC passes but I don't know how much of this fear is possibly over reacting to something that might happen but very well might not. We shouldn't be afraid to move forward for fear of what might happen.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Jim, thanks for the post and I hope you are a LSCDL member who will share some information.

As an active member of LSCDL, I'm sure you have seen the post by jecsd1 here claiming that the open-carry bill written by someone with LSCDL, but after it was given to Rep. Lavender, it was somehow hijacked by an unidentified "League" of people that he clearly insinuates is either TSRA, NRA, or both. Since you are a Legislative Director of LSCDL, would you clear that up for folks here on TexasCHLforum? As JKTex posted, LSCDL claims that “they” wanted a constitutional carry bill, but “but [they] sniffed the wind and thought that we'd better save that for next session.” On OpenCarry.org, “MR Redneck” claims he wrote the bill and he also claims to be a member of LSCDL.

Here are my questions.

• Is it true that, as in the LSCDL quote posted by JKTex, that LSCDL presented Rep. Lavender with a licensed open-carry bill?
  If so, was that bill written by someone using the screen name “MR Redneck?” And who is “MR Redneck;” i.e. what is his real name?
  Does LSCDL support amending TPC §30.06 so that it applies to both open-carry and concealed-carry?

Thanks,
Chas.

I am a member of the Lone Star Citizen's Defense League, and I have been investing my time, and financial resources into the effort to restore respect for the right to bear arms in Texas that is declared in Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to be reserved to "every citizen" in Texas.

This RIGHT we talk about so much is constitutionally INVIOLATE (Article 1, Section 29) in that the Legislature may only regulate , by law, the CRIMINAL wearing of arms. We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the Reconstruction Era policies of State government, and the Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

I AM a CHL holder . The supporters of HB 2756 ARE predominantly CHL holders. This bill will become law , and the criminal penalty for intentional failure to conceal will be repealed because it is unconstitutional , and the majority in the Texas Legislature realizes that fact, and supports the bill. That means that the CHL holder will have the option of making his or her own determination as to whether to conceal or display for personal safety.

Armed entry into private premises commonly open to the public is a matter for the acountants of every business enterprise to determine. That private determination is deserving of the respect of all who choose to enter, and engage in commerce with them.

I testified in favor of HB 2756 before the Public Safety Subcommittee, along side two other LSCDL members, and three other CHL holders who traveled to Austin that day motivated by their conviction that the bill is good law and Texas needs it passed.

Gun Owners of America is in support of HB 2756 - as well as the committment of the Lone Star Citizen's League to restore the constitutional right to bear arms in Texas. Sadly, the NRA has been missing in action during this effort.Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are recruiting "Hard Chargers". The active members of LSCDL are using our own resources to advance the right to bear arms in Texas. We hope to attract others who are equally committed to the declaration of rights in Article 1 of the Texas Constitution . We don't want your membership fee. We want your passion , and committment to the cause of liberty. Check us out - if you want to do more than just talk about gun laws in Texas ?

Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

My name is Jim Sherwood. I reside in Arlington, Texas, , and I am one of the legislative directors of Lone Star Citizen's Defense League.

http://www.gunowners.org/sa05052011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (click GOA STATE alerts box)

http://www.lonestarcdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[johnferg69]

I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license.

You lost me right there, Sir. I certainly hope that that is not the case. It shouldn't be an issue in the first place, but for now, it is a violation of the law.

I humbly submit to you, Sir, people speed, record copy-righted movies that they let others borrow and rip tags off mattresses too. LOL
Do you really think no one carries that don't have a CHL? Yes, they are breaking to law in this case but not all are doing it with bad intent.

Lets stay on track. You said "lots of people", and that is what I would dispute and have seen no evidence to support that. Do I honestly think that folks carry without a license? Yes. But I doubt that "lots" of them do so.

By lots I don't mean a million or so! With Texas' population I might guess maybe 100k+. Of course people on here's gonna scoff at the idea. But I suggest some people my be unrealistic!

[Charles L. Cotton]

We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the . . . Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

What do you mean by this and about whom are you talking?

This bill will become law . . .

Do you mean HB2756?

Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

Coming from the Legislative Director for LSCDL, this is an impressive representation! How does this work? Does LSCDL provide an attorney, or does the LSCDL Member select his/her own attorney and LSCDL pays all of the legal fees?

Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

For me, that will be determined in large part by whether you answer the questions in this post and in my preceding post. So far, no one with LSCDL has addressed any of the issues I raised, nor have any beside you identified themselves. You wrote a good post, but as someone else noted, it appears to be nothing more than a recruiting tool. Help us have more incite into LSCDL.

Chas.

[JKTex]

I hate when people are quoted, especially long posts, for no good reason, but I think this on is well worth quoting for those that are still asking questions and making comments that are addressed thoroughly here. If nothing else, it's worth understanding the strategy of the NRA and TSRA. I too was surprised not to see either making any mention of HB2756 but now I get it! I also understand how dangerous the bill can be if it at least doesn't have a self destruct mechanism installed. Sometimes we really don't want what we ask for and in a case like this, the damage that could be done could take a decade to fix.

What I am about to post is probably a waste of time since the vast majority of folks on TexasCHLforum already know this and the open-carry folks in the bomb-throwing category aren't going to believe it anyway. (They need an excuse for their own failure.) But here it is anyway.

First, as to HB2756:

• Neither NRA, TSRA, nor I had anything to do with writing or amending HB2756;
  Rep. Lavender provided a copy of the Bill to Alice shortly before filing and she sent it to me;
  The only input from "us" was that the Bill was very long and opened up numerous critical sections of the Gov't Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendments;
  Neither the NRA, TSRA, nor I have done one single thing to oppose the Bill, either formally or informally;
  Anyone who says any of the above statements are untrue is lying.

jescd1 has clearly implied that NRA or TSRA or a combination of us have somehow been involved in transforming the original so-called constitutional carry bill drafted by an as yet unidentified person (MR Redneck claims to have drafted the bill.) into the current HB2756. He goes on to say the original bill was amended to make it easier to oppose. That too is false.

To even make such an absurd statement shows that 1) Rep. Lavender never told him that; and 2) he doesn't know how the legislative process works. When someone or some organization drafts a bill and gives it to a prospective sponsor, the Senator or Representative almost always gives the bill to attorneys working for the State Legislature to rewrite. These people are called Legislative Counsel. When they are finished, the bill is given back to the author and he can request changes. Many, though not all, of our bills go through the same process. The implication that Rep. Lavender would take a constituent's bill and give it to someone other than Leg. Counsel for final drafting is ridiculous.

Last session, the battle cry of the bomb-throwers was that the NRA and TSRA killed open-carry behind the scenes and prevented Rep. Riddle from filing an open-carry bill. That was a lie. She never said she'd file a bill, she only said she would "pull a draft" meaning Leg. Counsel would draft a proposed bill. This year, they need a new excuse so apparently the new diversion is that HB2756 was really written by "us." What a load of garbage. I'm more than a little tired of the NRA and TSRA being used as a scapegoat for incompetence and inexperience.

As a practical matter, having NRA or TSRA promote open-carry would certainly increase the chances of it passing. It certainly would be far better for CHL's if we handle it since we could make sure that TPC §30.06 remains unchanged, or the bill will be killed. In my view, changing TPC §30.06 to cover open-carry is a deal-breaker. By the time the 2013 legislative session begins, we will have around 650,000 CHL's if the current growth rate continues. I will never put them at risk for a handful of people who will actually carry openly.

So the question becomes, "when will NRA or TSRA take on open-carry?" As I have explained in numerous posts, we work on a two year cycle. When a session ends, we begin work on the next session. Sometimes we begin work on the next session before the current session ends! I've also explained that having more than one or two "flagship bills" that are high profile and emotionally charged is a mistake. There simply aren't enough hours in the day for us or elected officials to do everything necessary to pass such bills. Few people know the amount of work/hours that goes into passing any bill, much less a bill that generates a lot of emotional and irrational opposition. Even fewer people know that the sponsors of such bills have to work just as hard, if they truly want to bill to pass. It's easy to file a bill for someone or some organization, then do absolutely nothing to get it passed. We have passed a lot of high profile, emotionally charged bills in recent sessions and parking lot and campus-carry certainly fall into that category. If parking lots passes and campus-carry doesn't (no, I'm not saying it won't, I'm giving an example), then we're down to one high-profile bill for 2013 giving us room for one more. There are several other things we want to do that won't draw the media coverage we see for these two bills, so those can be filed along with one or two "flagship" bills.

The Texas Firearms Coalition educational series will include speaking engagements and materials designed to educate people on the great track record established by CHL's and how this experience points to very successful open-carry in Texas. This will lay the ground work for passage of open-carry and it will go a long way to help prevent or at least minimize a backlash against citizens carrying defensive handguns, whether openly or concealed. I want to point out that promoting open-carry will not be a high priority activity with TFC; our mission and strategic plan is far broader.

Does all this mean that NRA or TSRA will promote open-carry in 2013? No, it doesn't, but I can say that it will be considered. Nothing has changed in terms of demand from members to actively support open-carry; very few have contacted us to support it. However, as Steveincowtown said, it appears that others are going to push the issue, so perhaps we will have to take on the project. It appears that some people want open-carry badly enough to bring bills that can harm the gun rights of hundreds of thousands of Texas CHL's, not counting visitors to our State, so that fact has to be considered when setting our legislative agenda.

So when the bomb-throwers start spouting off about horses' mouths and make blatantly false insinuations (all anonymously I might add), please consider the source and years of failures from their camp. The NRA and TSRA have a great record of success and it's because we know how and when to present issues to the legislature. Patience is rarely fun or exciting, but it's often crucial to seeing a Governor sign your bill into law.

Chas.

[Keith B]

Another question from a layman. Is oc a useless law? If every business throws up signs keeping firearms out what's the point? Is this why the NRA and TSRA wouldn't back a oc bill? I don't travel extensively travel outside Texas but why does so many other states have oc if you can't go anywhere? I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license. Some are law abiding citizens(that think they can't qualify or feel they shouldn't need too), some aren't. If open carry was an option wouldn't more people apply for a carry license if its more visible and not a "concealed" right? The out of sight, out of mind right! Or is this not what we want? If more people apply and any initial shock wears off wouldn't many signs come down? Just asking.

Open carry is NOT as widely practiced in other states as many open carry advocates would like you to believe. I came from an open carry state where I lived for 38 years, and was a LEO part of that time. You may see it when someone is out target practicing, or on their farm property, but VERY rarely in towns of cities. As a matter for fact, many states allow the municipalities to prohibit open carry by local ordinance, so you can't tell where it is legal vs. not unless you research the city code.

I know of two instances where a 'Man with a gun' call was made to the 911 during my time as a LEO as I was the one responding. While both of my instances resulted in the individual being asked to leave the store, and they complied, it was still a call and police responded. Luckily the callers were calm and explained to the dispatcher that they were just walking around with the gun and not threatening anyone, but the store made it clear they wanted the individuals out of there and were afraid to approach the person themselves.

So, bottom line, the calls do happen and you don't see a lot of open carry in other states.

[johnferg69]

Another question from a layman. Is oc a useless law? If every business throws up signs keeping firearms out what's the point? Is this why the NRA and TSRA wouldn't back a oc bill? I don't travel extensively travel outside Texas but why does so many other states have oc if you can't go anywhere? I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license. Some are law abiding citizens(that think they can't qualify or feel they shouldn't need too), some aren't. If open carry was an option wouldn't more people apply for a carry license if its more visible and not a "concealed" right? The out of sight, out of mind right! Or is this not what we want? If more people apply and any initial shock wears off wouldn't many signs come down? Just asking.

Open carry is NOT as widely practiced in other states as many open carry advocates would like you to believe. I came from an open carry state where I lived for 38 years, and was a LEO part of that time. You may see it when someone is out target practicing, or on their farm property, but VERY rarely in towns of cities. As a matter for fact, many states allow the municipalities to prohibit open carry by local ordinance, so you can't tell where it is legal vs. not unless you research the city code.

I know of two instances where a 'Man with a gun' call was made to the 911 during my time as a LEO as I was the one responding. While both of my instances resulted in the individual being asked to leave the store, and they complied, it was still a call and police responded. Luckily the callers were calm and explained to the dispatcher that they were just walking around with the gun and not threatening anyone, but the store made it clear they wanted the individuals out of there and were afraid to approach the person themselves.

So, bottom line, the calls do happen and you don't see a lot of open carry in other states.

So you believe its a useless law?

[Keith B]

Where in this bill does it say "licensed open carry"? All I've read is "carry a handgun".

It is totally clarified in section 40 quoted below at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SECTION 40. The change in law made by this Act relating to
the authority of a license holder to openly carry a handgun applies
to the carrying of a handgun on or after the effective date of this
Act by any person who:
(1) holds a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code, regardless of whether the person's license
was issued before, on, or after the effective date of this Act; or
(2) applies for the issuance of a license under that
subchapter, regardless of whether the person applied for the
license before, on, or after the effective date of this Act.
SECTION 41. The changes in law made by this Act to Sections
30.05, 30.06, 46.03, 46.035, and 46.15, Penal Code, apply only to an
offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed
by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former
law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this
section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this
Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date.
SECTION 42. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

[JKTex]

Another question from a layman. Is oc a useless law? If every business throws up signs keeping firearms out what's the point? Is this why the NRA and TSRA wouldn't back a oc bill? I don't travel extensively travel outside Texas but why does so many other states have oc if you can't go anywhere? I mean, let's admit it, lots of people carry concealed with no license. Some are law abiding citizens(that think they can't qualify or feel they shouldn't need too), some aren't. If open carry was an option wouldn't more people apply for a carry license if its more visible and not a "concealed" right? The out of sight, out of mind right! Or is this not what we want? If more people apply and any initial shock wears off wouldn't many signs come down? Just asking.

Open carry is NOT as widely practiced in other states as many open carry advocates would like you to believe. I came from an open carry state where I lived for 38 years, and was a LEO part of that time. You may see it when someone is out target practicing, or on their farm property, but VERY rarely in towns of cities. As a matter for fact, many states allow the municipalities to prohibit open carry by local ordinance, so you can't tell where it is legal vs. not unless you research the city code.

I know of two instances where a 'Man with a gun' call was made to the 911 during my time as a LEO as I was the one responding. While both of my instances resulted in the individual being asked to leave the store, and they complied, it was still a call and police responded. Luckily the callers were calm and explained to the dispatcher that they were just walking around with the gun and not threatening anyone, but the store made it clear they wanted the individuals out of there and were afraid to approach the person themselves.

So, bottom line, the calls do happen and you don't see a lot of open carry in other states.

So you believe its a useless law?

A bad law is useless, this one is a slippery slope that can do some serious damage without some controls.

What Keith said can be recorded and played back by most, if not all states that do not prohibit open carry. Some areas it's common place and some it's not. Most people can figure out where it's prudent to OC and where it's not.

Decriminalizing open carry is not useless. But open carry is not practiced to the extent that most people believe, people on both sides of the issue. Folks that don't carry or ar anti-gun as well as some on "our side" take it to the extreme making it sound like everyone that has a handgun will have it strapped to the thigh in a tactical rig like Rambo or walking down the street with a pair of .44's hanging form a western looking for someone to call out for a gunfight. When in fact, while sure, there will be "that guy" who will spend most of his time trying to get attention and a new lawyer for the latest charge because of his combative public behavior, most people will just enjoy knowing they can if and when the situation suits carrying open. Or in my case, I'd love to not worry about carrying OWB when wearing a jacket and taking the jacket off, like sitting down in a restaurant, where it's not going to be an attention getter. Just convenience and comfort. There are anti-gun folks and even folks that aren't anti-gun, but have this idea that if someone is carrying a gun in the vicinity of them or their kids, the gun is somehow a serious threat. Irrational, yes, paranoid, yes, ridiculous, yes, but it's what has been put in their head. If it doens't put my or my families personal safety at risk, I can cover my sidearm and go on without shaking up other people.

The wrong OC law is useless but worse, it's dangerous and disastrous.

BTW, go back and read Charles long post (I quoted a couple of post back) it will address some of the points you made/questions you asked.

[jlangton]

most people will just enjoy knowing they can if and when the situation suits carrying open. Or in my case, I'd love to not worry about carrying OWB when wearing a jacket and taking the jacket off, like sitting down in a restaurant, where it's not going to be an attention getter. Just convenience and comfort.

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it.
JL

[mgood]

I still don't see if the 30.06 sign was enough to deter posting for concealed carry why it wouldn't be enough to deter open carry. If it's too big of a problem for companies that want to keep out legal citizens carrying concealed guns to post 30.06 signs today what makes anyone think just because open carry might pass there going to be any more apt to post 30.06 signs?

People are lazy by nature. They know in the back of their head that people can carry today yet they don't take the time to post 30.06 signs and I doubt even w/OC your it's to be like the old west. We have examples from other parts of the country that are OC and it's just not that way.

The thinking is that many business owners/managers who might not be comfortable with the idea of people carrying guns in their business don't post because they don't see people carrying. Concealed means concealed and out of sight is out of mind. Some of them (number unknown, but some) would post a 30.06 sign if they were really aware of people carrying.
If they see people carrying openly, then they are reminded of it. That might motivate some of them to find out what kind of sign they need to post in order to prevent this. If the same sign is used, that would mean more places where we can't carry concealed.

I am in favor of open carry. I really think that after an initial period of excitement, it'll become no big deal. I've mentioned in other threads that I open carried daily in New Mexico when I worked there. (Worked in a gun store where I was encouraged to carry, but I frequently left the store to run errands or get lunch and carried openly wherever I was going.) But I understand the concerns of the Texas CHL community. Let businesses prevent open carry with a simple "gunbusters" sign and it will be less likely to affect concealed carriers. The 30.06 sign is the issue here.
I think open carry will come (back) to Texas. I'm all for that. I'm just not sure this is the right time.
We are winning battles on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms front. We're taking back our rights a little at a time. But I think baby steps to ease the public into the idea of people carrying guns is the way to win the war. Open carry, this year, might be too much too soon.
We are all on the same side, working toward the same goal. We just have different ideas about how and when and where to push.
We have strength in numbers, so I support the NRA and TSRA. I may not always agree with their strategy, but I think that presenting a unified front is the wise move. So encourage the group to push the issues important to you, but stay within the group. We'll get there.