Questions for OCT

[paxton25]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

I didn't need you to repeat your statement. I understood it and I disagree with your premise. Even if you have heard CHLs make such statements, something I've never heard in talking to far more CHLs than you in all likelihood, they have no impact on open-carry efforts, either licensed or unlicensed. While Texas has something over 760,000 CHLs, that's not enough to block open-carry legislation even if every single one of them called to oppose open-carry.

I stated that the general public enjoys a significant comfort level that comes with the 18 track record CHLs have earned because they hold the fate of open-carry to a great extent. They are the voting block that will either be quiet about open-carry, or be calling legislators demanding that they oppose open-carry. I'm at a loss as to how you ignore the general public and point to a tiny segment of the Texas population implying that they can or would block open-carry. You like most open-carry zealots want to blame CHLs for the public opposition to open-carry when it was generated almost exclusively by OCT and OCTC's in-your-face tactics.

"willfully convoluted . . ." Tone it down sport; your OCT roots are showing.

Chas.

Maybe I do need to keep repeating my statements. You are claiming I am making a premise I am not. My premise was that I think we would get more CHL holders to support constitutional carry if there wasn't a view among SOME that they were in an elite club or that it wasn't fair that they had to pay and new people won't. Never said ALL chls had this attitude. Never claimed or implied that this minority can or would be sufficient to block open carry so stop making things up. Maybe the reason you haven't heard that is because you never asked the CHL holders you talk to how they would feel about unlicensed carry open and concelaed? Disagree with the observation or not it is still my observation based on my experience long before there was an OCT.

I said I assumed I wasn't being clear and that you weren't willfully convoluting what I had said, I guess that was a wrong assumption since you are intent on repeating that action when you have been corrected. And now quote that out of context. And then, not only do you insinuate I am lying, talk to me as if I were a child "sport", but because I don't jump in line to kiss your butt and just say how great you are because you have lunch with politicians who sells us out that I must be an OCT member. For the record, I never agreed with forcing a business to make a stand on 2A issues, businesses should just be worried about business and not politics unless they OFFER to engage in an issue, I have never been to an OC rally of any kind, OCT, CATI or any other group, don't pay dues to any OC group, have never open carried any type of firearm farther than my dove lease or from my house to my truck but it's easier for you to lump someone who you can't have an intelligent discussion with as an open carry zealot. It's amusing really from someone that says everyone is welcome and the discussion is open but you can't refrain from personal attacks on people that don't agree with you on 100% of the time. Wait a minute, isn't that kind of what you are claiming the OCT guys are doing? It's a shame really because I was really getting into the track you were talking about on focusing on where we can carry and reducing the disqualifiers for CHLs.

[mojo84]

I don't see 8-10 people making much of a difference overall.

[paxton25]

Me either, but whether it makes a difference or not is a different argument from whether or not it exists. This wasn't some political stance by me or some manifesto or attack on CHL holders, merely an observation on my part. It's valid to say it doesn't make a difference, or that's not my experience but to imply I am making it up or because some OC group said something similar makes me some kind of OC zealot is not only unfair it's dishonest. Especially since I have repeated over and over again I care more about Constitutional carry than I do OC. If even licensed OC passes I will rarely OC, I prefer to conceal but I would like the option. If that makes me some sort of anti gun plant working against gun rights so be it.

I don't see 8-10 people making much of a difference overall.

[Cedar Park Dad]

ETA: I didn't OC extensively while I was there, just stopped into a convenience store and then shopped at Sam's after an IDPA match at WB Gun Club. Since OC was legal, I just kept my competition rig on instead of swapping out to my IWB rig, didn't wear my competition vest because it's pink,.............kind of like what I will do after OC passes in Tx.

I've done that after a night match, just kept on my "shoot me first" vest.

[paxton25]

ETA: I didn't OC extensively while I was there, just stopped into a convenience store and then shopped at Sam's after an IDPA match at WB Gun Club. Since OC was legal, I just kept my competition rig on instead of swapping out to my IWB rig, didn't wear my competition vest because it's pink,.............kind of like what I will do after OC passes in Tx.

I've done that after a night match, just kept on my "shoot me first" vest.

Over there they should allow open carry of RPGs!

[paxton25]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

I didn't need you to repeat your statement. I understood it and I disagree with your premise. Even if you have heard CHLs make such statements, something I've never heard in talking to far more CHLs than you in all likelihood, they have no impact on open-carry efforts, either licensed or unlicensed. While Texas has something over 760,000 CHLs, that's not enough to block open-carry legislation even if every single one of them called to oppose open-carry.

I stated that the general public enjoys a significant comfort level that comes with the 18 track record CHLs have earned because they hold the fate of open-carry to a great extent. They are the voting block that will either be quiet about open-carry, or be calling legislators demanding that they oppose open-carry. I'm at a loss as to how you ignore the general public and point to a tiny segment of the Texas population implying that they can or would block open-carry. You like most open-carry zealots want to blame CHLs for the public opposition to open-carry when it was generated almost exclusively by OCT and OCTC's in-your-face tactics.

"willfully convoluted . . ." Tone it down sport; your OCT roots are showing.

Chas.

Maybe I do need to keep repeating my statements. You are claiming I am making a premise I am not. My premise was that I think we would get more CHL holders to support constitutional carry if there wasn't a view among SOME that they were in an elite club or that it wasn't fair that they had to pay and new people won't. Never said ALL chls had this attitude. Never claimed or implied that this minority can or would be sufficient to block open carry so stop making things up. Maybe the reason you haven't heard that is because you never asked the CHL holders you talk to how they would feel about unlicensed carry open and concelaed? Disagree with the observation or not it is still my observation based on my experience long before there was an OCT.

I said I assumed I wasn't being clear and that you weren't willfully convoluting what I had said, I guess that was a wrong assumption since you are intent on repeating that action when you have been corrected. And now quote that out of context. And then, not only do you insinuate I am lying, talk to me as if I were a child "sport", but because I don't jump in line to kiss your butt and just say how great you are because you have lunch with politicians who sells us out that I must be an OCT member. For the record, I never agreed with forcing a business to make a stand on 2A issues, businesses should just be worried about business and not politics unless they OFFER to engage in an issue, I have never been to an OC rally of any kind, OCT, CATI or any other group, don't pay dues to any OC group, have never open carried any type of firearm farther than my dove lease or from my house to my truck but it's easier for you to lump someone who you can't have an intelligent discussion with as an open carry zealot. It's amusing really from someone that says everyone is welcome and the discussion is open but you can't refrain from personal attacks on people that don't agree with you on 100% of the time. Wait a minute, isn't that kind of what you are claiming the OCT guys are doing? It's a shame really because I was really getting into the track you were talking about on focusing on where we can carry and reducing the disqualifiers for CHLs.

You know, after careful reflection I would like to extend my apologies to Charles and the members here. My reaction to what I believed was questioning my honesty, while perhaps understandable to any Texas man, was not appropriate or courteous. Especially on such an insignifigant issue as the perceptions of CHL holders with regard to unlicensed carry. I understand many people in here have their fur up because of some attacks by others but I feel that was unfairly directed at me. I don't feel I am the enemy here. I simply want the best bill passed in the next session and I personally believe it is constitutional carry, right now the best bill I see is HB195. I am sincerely interested in seeing if TSRA or NRA or Mr. Cotton have an alternate bill in the works that I can support if there are good reasons not to support hb195 other than some say it can't pass. I have been told by politicians and the political elites several times that what I am pushing for won't happen only to see it happen after not giving in. I don't really see why this should be contentious and cause conflict among 2A supporters. Part of my frustration comes from seeing several good 2A bills die or get watered down over the last few sessions and I truly think that the makeup of the lege this next session is the best we have ever had to pass real 2A friendly bills. Please accept my sincere apologies for over reacting to what I felt were attacks on my integrity as I feel I have been nothing but upfront and honest on where I stand. I welcome disagreements with me or different views that can be vigorously debated as long as I am extended the same courtesies due other members here.

[The Annoyed Man]

I simply want the best bill passed in the next session and I personally believe it is constitutional carry, right now the best bill I see is HB195. I am sincerely interested in seeing if TSRA or NRA or Mr. Cotton have an alternate bill in the works that I can support if there are good reasons not to support hb195 other than some say it can't pass. I have been told by politicians and the political elites several times that what I am pushing for won't happen only to see it happen after not giving in. I don't really see why this should be contentious and cause conflict among 2A supporters.

Paxton25, since you appear to be asking this question in good faith, there are two factors at work here: how a bill affects PC §30.06, and how much political capital will have to be expended in order to pass it.

Here is why anything that messes with PC §30.06 is a bad bill that will not get NRA/TSRA support, and will most likely killed: If it incorporates Open Carry (OC, going forward) into PC §30.06, there is a very good reason for why that must not be allowed to happen. Today, when a CHL walks into an unposted store, so long as he/she behaves themselves, the store owner is not motivated to post a 30.06 sign. Why would he be? Even if he is really ANTI-2nd Amendment, he has no way of knowing if the person entering his store is a CHL or not. Very FEW business owners are self-motivated enough to either do the research, or to hire an attorney to do it for them, to find a way to keep CC out of their stores. It just isn't on their radar, because "out of sight = out of mind". For them, it does not take some kind of pivotal event involving an exposed gun to make then exercise anti-gun activism in their places of business. However, OC is not that way. Whether it is intended as a provocation or not, the OCer has absolutely ZERO control over whether the gun is perceived as a provocative act. The fence-sitter who hadn't give it much though until now, or the rabidly antigun person who simply hadn't considered the possibility until now, will with a high probability post a sign to keep OCers out of the store. Mind you, they STILL won't know they are affecting CCers because CCers fly low and avoid the radar. When they post that sign, if OC is incorporated under 30.06, then BOTH OCers AND CCers are now banned from carrying into the store. This is a step backward for the CCer, caused by the OCer's provocation of the store owner.......and remember, this is provocation whether or not it is intentional. It still provokes a reaction from the business owner.

SO..... exactly ZERO bills that incorporate OC under 30.06 will receive NRA/TSRA support, and in fact will probably be killed—because a setback for CC is completely unacceptable as the price of passing OC. And this is the absolutely CRUCIAL point that OCT refuses to take into account in their calculations.......either that, or they are deliberately trying to sabotage CC. Since they refuse to consider it, they are vastly out of touch with reality.

If you refer to this thread - viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - you will see that there are more than one OC bill under consideration. Here are the one's I've lifted from Charles' opening post in that thread:

Color-coded and linked bills are available on the 2015 Bill Status Report on the Texas Firearms Coalition website. UPDATED: 11/14/14

HOUSE BILLS:

HB92 (White) Relating to the definition of an illegal knife.
Impact: Removes Bowie knife from definition of illegal knives and from a defense for historical reinactments. Still illegal to carry knives with blades over 5 1/2".
Postion on Bill: Neutral. This bill does not help Texans.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB106 (Flynn, R, A+) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry, but destroys the protections of Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Position on Bill: Oppose, becaue of the amendment to Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB118 (Flynn, R, A+) Relating to a fee waiver for a combination resident hunting and fishing license for certain military personnel.
Impact: Removes the fee for a combined hunting and fishing license for disabled veterans and active military.
Position on Bill: Neutral.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB164 (White) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry and preserves the protection of Tex. Penal Code §30.06
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB152 (Harless, R, A) Relating to the authority of the voters of certain counties to authorize the county to regulate the sale and use of fireworks; providing penalties.
Impact: Deals with county regulation of fireworks.
Position on Bill: Neutral, but monitor to ensure firearms and sport shooting ranges are not added to the bill.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB153 (Harless, R, A) Relating to the adoption of noise regulations by certain counties; providing a criminal penalty; authorizing a fee.
Impact: Deals with county regulation of noise generated by loud speakers.
Position on Bill: Neutral, but monitor to ensure firearms and sport shooting ranges are not added to the bill.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB172 (Stickland) Relating to municipal regulation of electric stun guns, knives, and personal defense sprays.
Impact: Adds stun guns, knives and personal defense sprays to the Texas preemption statute preventing municipal regulation thereof. However, it adds an unnecessary provision that guts much of the Texas Sport Shooting Range Protection law passed in 2011.
Position on Bill: Oppose this bad bill, unless the proposed Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.(b)(10) is removed.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB176 (Kleinschmidt, R, A+) Relating to protection of the right to keep and bear arms within the State of Texas.
Impact: Attempts to invalidate certain federal gun laws. Also prohibits state law enforcement officer from enforcing certain federal laws.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/15.

HB195 (Stickland, R) Relating to the carrying of handguns; providing for the open carrying of handguns; removing the requirement that a person who may lawfully possess handguns obtain a Concealed Handgun License in order to carry a handgun lawfully in the state of Texas, and conforming changes.
Impact: Created unlicensed open or concealed carry; retains all current off-limits areas.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB198 (Huberty) Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns by certain persons attending a school board meeting.
Impact: Would allow school board members and school superintendents to carry handguns at school board meetings.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB206 (Leach) Relating to an exemption from the sales tax for firearms and hunting supplies for a limited period.
Impact: Creats a sales tax free day for purchasing firearms and hunting supplies.
Position on Bill: Neutral.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB223 (Guillen, D) Relating to acceptable conduct of students in kindergarten through grade five.
Impact: Protects school children from K - 5th grades from being disciplined for certain acts related to firearm representations.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB226 (Guillen, D) Relating to certain offenses relating to carrying concealed handguns on property owned or leased by a governmental entity; providing a civil penalty.
Impact: Creats a civil penalty for local governments and agencies that post unenforceable 30.06 signs.
Position on Bill: Support, but demand amendment to allow for private causes of action.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB278 (Ashby) Relating to authorizing certain attorneys representing the state to openly carry a handgun.
Impact: Would allow government attorneys to carry handgun openly.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: Filed 11/12/14

HB284 (Springer, R, A+)
Impact: Sets the minimum caliber for CHL qualification to .22.
Companion Bill: SB179 by Perry.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/13/14.

HB291 (Huberty) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry, but destroys the protections of Tex. Penal Code §30.06. (Appears identical to HB106.)
Position on Bill: Oppose, becaue of the amendment to Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Status: 11/14/14.

Senate Bills:[/size][/b]

SB124 (West, D) Relating to certain criminal offenses concerning the unlawful transfer or purchase of certain weapons.
Impact: Expands the scope of Tex. Penal Code §46.06 to certain purchases of firearms making it unlawful to purchase with intent to transfer under certain vague and ambiguous circumstances. This is a class Sen. Royce West anti-gun, anti-gun owner bill. It is intentionally vague so as to be a trap for unsuspecting persons.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: 11/10/14

SB179 (Perry) Relating to the handgun proficiency required to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license.
Companion Bill: HB284 by Rep. Springer
Impact: Sets the minimum caliber for CHL qualification to .22.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/12/14.

As you can see from this list, there are FOUR Open Carry bills under consideration.

1. HB106 creates licensed OC and amends 30.06 to include OC. That last bit makes it a non-starter.
2. HB164 creates licensed OC and leaves 30.06 alone.
3. HB195 creates Constitutional Carry and leaves 30.06 alone.
4. HM291 creates licensed OC and amends 30.06 to include OC. That last bit makes it a non-starter.

So as you can see, of the four bills, 1 & 4 are non-starters because of amending 30.06. 2 creates Constitutional Carry and protects 30.06. 3 creates licensed carry and protects 30.06. And, further, both 2 & 3 have TSRA/NRA support.

So the next consideration is, "how much political capital will either of these two bills cost? That question is almost irrelevant if HB164 and HB195 are the only two gun-legislation bills currently under consideration. But, they are NOT. As you can see from Charles' quote I included above, there are currently SIXTEEN bills before the House and TWO before the Senate......and these are just the ones we know about NOW. Each one of those spends some of that political capital.......and please note that Campus Carry, another very important bill, isn't even on that list yet.

Currently, it seems that HB164 probably has a very good chance of passing - creating licensed OC with protection for 30.06. And given the excellent record of CHLers in terms of criminal statistics, there probably ins't going to be that much opposition in the House, at least among the republican majority. Since HB164 wouldn't affect democrat Joe Pickett's income stream from CHL instruction, he might even get some democrats on board.

HB195 is a good bill, but it is a much tougher sell. The question is then, is it important enough to try to push it through in this session, if the price is NOT passing any of the other bills? And then, even if that question is answered in the affirmative and supporters try to ram HB195 through, what happens if they fail? They could fail, you know. It's not unheard of. In that case not only did HB195 fail, but so did a dozen other good bills......bills which might have passed if we had taken the less ambitious route and passed HB164 instead.

And even though it seems too long to wait, what if passing HB164 now makes it a slam-dunk to pass HB195 in 6 years from now?

I would dearly like to see HB195 pass, but NOT if it means that we get nothing at all. HB195 or nothing is a losing game. I'd take HB164 happily and look forward to Constitutional Carry in the future.

[paxton25]

I simply want the best bill passed in the next session and I personally believe it is constitutional carry, right now the best bill I see is HB195. I am sincerely interested in seeing if TSRA or NRA or Mr. Cotton have an alternate bill in the works that I can support if there are good reasons not to support hb195 other than some say it can't pass. I have been told by politicians and the political elites several times that what I am pushing for won't happen only to see it happen after not giving in. I don't really see why this should be contentious and cause conflict among 2A supporters.

Paxton25, since you appear to be asking this question in good faith, there are two factors at work here: how a bill affects PC §30.06, and how much political capital will have to be expended in order to pass it.

Here is why anything that messes with PC §30.06 is a bad bill that will not get NRA/TSRA support, and will most likely killed: If it incorporates Open Carry (OC, going forward) into PC §30.06, there is a very good reason for why that must not be allowed to happen. Today, when a CHL walks into an unposted store, so long as he/she behaves themselves, the store owner is not motivated to post a 30.06 sign. Why would he be? Even if he is really ANTI-2nd Amendment, he has no way of knowing if the person entering his store is a CHL or not. Very FEW business owners are self-motivated enough to either do the research, or to hire an attorney to do it for them, to find a way to keep CC out of their stores. It just isn't on their radar, because "out of sight = out of mind". For them, it does not take some kind of pivotal event involving an exposed gun to make then exercise anti-gun activism in their places of business. However, OC is not that way. Whether it is intended as a provocation or not, the OCer has absolutely ZERO control over whether the gun is perceived as a provocative act. The fence-sitter who hadn't give it much though until now, or the rabidly antigun person who simply hadn't considered the possibility until now, will with a high probability post a sign to keep OCers out of the store. Mind you, they STILL won't know they are affecting CCers because CCers fly low and avoid the radar. When they post that sign, if OC is incorporated under 30.06, then BOTH OCers AND CCers are now banned from carrying into the store. This is a step backward for the CCer, caused by the OCer's provocation of the store owner.......and remember, this is provocation whether or not it is intentional. It still provokes a reaction from the business owner.

SO..... exactly ZERO bills that incorporate OC under 30.06 will receive NRA/TSRA support, and in fact will probably be killed—because a setback for CC is completely unacceptable as the price of passing OC. And this is the absolutely CRUCIAL point that OCT refuses to take into account in their calculations.......either that, or they are deliberately trying to sabotage CC. Since they refuse to consider it, they are vastly out of touch with reality.

If you refer to this thread - viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - you will see that there are more than one OC bill under consideration. Here are the one's I've lifted from Charles' opening post in that thread:

Color-coded and linked bills are available on the 2015 Bill Status Report on the Texas Firearms Coalition website. UPDATED: 11/14/14

HOUSE BILLS:

HB92 (White) Relating to the definition of an illegal knife.
Impact: Removes Bowie knife from definition of illegal knives and from a defense for historical reinactments. Still illegal to carry knives with blades over 5 1/2".
Postion on Bill: Neutral. This bill does not help Texans.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB106 (Flynn, R, A+) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry, but destroys the protections of Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Position on Bill: Oppose, becaue of the amendment to Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB118 (Flynn, R, A+) Relating to a fee waiver for a combination resident hunting and fishing license for certain military personnel.
Impact: Removes the fee for a combined hunting and fishing license for disabled veterans and active military.
Position on Bill: Neutral.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB164 (White) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry and preserves the protection of Tex. Penal Code §30.06
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB152 (Harless, R, A) Relating to the authority of the voters of certain counties to authorize the county to regulate the sale and use of fireworks; providing penalties.
Impact: Deals with county regulation of fireworks.
Position on Bill: Neutral, but monitor to ensure firearms and sport shooting ranges are not added to the bill.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB153 (Harless, R, A) Relating to the adoption of noise regulations by certain counties; providing a criminal penalty; authorizing a fee.
Impact: Deals with county regulation of noise generated by loud speakers.
Position on Bill: Neutral, but monitor to ensure firearms and sport shooting ranges are not added to the bill.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB172 (Stickland) Relating to municipal regulation of electric stun guns, knives, and personal defense sprays.
Impact: Adds stun guns, knives and personal defense sprays to the Texas preemption statute preventing municipal regulation thereof. However, it adds an unnecessary provision that guts much of the Texas Sport Shooting Range Protection law passed in 2011.
Position on Bill: Oppose this bad bill, unless the proposed Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.(b)(10) is removed.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB176 (Kleinschmidt, R, A+) Relating to protection of the right to keep and bear arms within the State of Texas.
Impact: Attempts to invalidate certain federal gun laws. Also prohibits state law enforcement officer from enforcing certain federal laws.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/15.

HB195 (Stickland, R) Relating to the carrying of handguns; providing for the open carrying of handguns; removing the requirement that a person who may lawfully possess handguns obtain a Concealed Handgun License in order to carry a handgun lawfully in the state of Texas, and conforming changes.
Impact: Created unlicensed open or concealed carry; retains all current off-limits areas.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB198 (Huberty) Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns by certain persons attending a school board meeting.
Impact: Would allow school board members and school superintendents to carry handguns at school board meetings.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB206 (Leach) Relating to an exemption from the sales tax for firearms and hunting supplies for a limited period.
Impact: Creats a sales tax free day for purchasing firearms and hunting supplies.
Position on Bill: Neutral.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB223 (Guillen, D) Relating to acceptable conduct of students in kindergarten through grade five.
Impact: Protects school children from K - 5th grades from being disciplined for certain acts related to firearm representations.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB226 (Guillen, D) Relating to certain offenses relating to carrying concealed handguns on property owned or leased by a governmental entity; providing a civil penalty.
Impact: Creats a civil penalty for local governments and agencies that post unenforceable 30.06 signs.
Position on Bill: Support, but demand amendment to allow for private causes of action.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB278 (Ashby) Relating to authorizing certain attorneys representing the state to openly carry a handgun.
Impact: Would allow government attorneys to carry handgun openly.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: Filed 11/12/14

HB284 (Springer, R, A+)
Impact: Sets the minimum caliber for CHL qualification to .22.
Companion Bill: SB179 by Perry.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/13/14.

HB291 (Huberty) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry, but destroys the protections of Tex. Penal Code §30.06. (Appears identical to HB106.)
Position on Bill: Oppose, becaue of the amendment to Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Status: 11/14/14.

Senate Bills:[/size][/b]

SB124 (West, D) Relating to certain criminal offenses concerning the unlawful transfer or purchase of certain weapons.
Impact: Expands the scope of Tex. Penal Code §46.06 to certain purchases of firearms making it unlawful to purchase with intent to transfer under certain vague and ambiguous circumstances. This is a class Sen. Royce West anti-gun, anti-gun owner bill. It is intentionally vague so as to be a trap for unsuspecting persons.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: 11/10/14

SB179 (Perry) Relating to the handgun proficiency required to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license.
Companion Bill: HB284 by Rep. Springer
Impact: Sets the minimum caliber for CHL qualification to .22.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/12/14.

As you can see from this list, there are FOUR Open Carry bills under consideration.

1. HB106 creates licensed OC and amends 30.06 to include OC. That last bit makes it a non-starter.
2. HB164 creates licensed OC and leaves 30.06 alone.
3. HB195 creates Constitutional Carry and leaves 30.06 alone.
4. HM291 creates licensed OC and amends 30.06 to include OC. That last bit makes it a non-starter.

So as you can see, of the four bills, 1 & 4 are non-starters because of amending 30.06. 2 creates Constitutional Carry and protects 30.06. 3 creates licensed carry and protects 30.06. And, further, both 2 & 3 have TSRA/NRA support.

So the next consideration is, "how much political capital will either of these two bills cost? That question is almost irrelevant if HB164 and HB195 are the only two gun-legislation bills currently under consideration. But, they are NOT. As you can see from Charles' quote I included above, there are currently SIXTEEN bills before the House and TWO before the Senate......and these are just the ones we know about NOW. Each one of those spends some of that political capital.......and please note that Campus Carry, another very important bill, isn't even on that list yet.

Currently, it seems that HB164 probably has a very good chance of passing - creating licensed OC with protection for 30.06. And given the excellent record of CHLers in terms of criminal statistics, there probably ins't going to be that much opposition in the House, at least among the republican majority. Since HB164 wouldn't affect democrat Joe Pickett's income stream from CHL instruction, he might even get some democrats on board.

HB195 is a good bill, but it is a much tougher sell. The question is then, is it important enough to try to push it through in this session, if the price is NOT passing any of the other bills? And then, even if that question is answered in the affirmative and supporters try to ram HB195 through, what happens if they fail? They could fail, you know. It's not unheard of. In that case not only did HB195 fail, but so did a dozen other good bills......bills which might have passed if we had taken the less ambitious route and passed HB164 instead.

And even though it seems too long to wait, what if passing HB164 now makes it a slam-dunk to pass HB195 in 6 years from now?

I would dearly like to see HB195 pass, but NOT if it means that we get nothing at all. HB195 or nothing is a losing game. I'd take HB164 happily and look forward to Constitutional Carry in the future.

Thanks, I was aware of the licensed OC bills, and I looked at these before but let me digest the commentary for a bit. I appreciate the help.

[paxton25]

So since HB195 is a supported bill and there are no notes about it's effect with regards to 30.06 like there is in the other ones does that mean the concern you mentioned with bringing OC into 30.06 is not an issue with HB195?

[C-dub]

I'll tell you all what did it for me. Reading about this and seeing it on multiple news sources. This tells me all I needed to know about this group of people.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/ ... -open.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

So since HB195 is a supported bill and there are no notes about it's effect with regards to 30.06 like there is in the other ones does that mean the concern you mentioned with bringing OC into 30.06 is not an issue with HB195?

Correct. At least as Charles has outlined it above, HB195 does not incorporate OC into 30.06. What exactly it does do about signage, if anything, I don't know. But as long 30.06 is protected and remains relevant only for CC, then HB195 would be a good bill. However, I wish Charles would give us some detail here if he can, because the text of HB195 (upon my first reading of it) is actually disturbing. Ideally, HB195 would add PC §30.07 to the code, which would be to OC as 30.06 is to CC. So if a business wanted to block ALL carrying into its premises, it would have to post BOTH "big ugly signs", and they would BOTH have to be compliant. ..... but that does not appear to be the case as I read the bill.

Here is a link to the changes that HB195 would make to TPC §46.035: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00195I.htm. Here is a link to TPC §46.035 as it currently stands: (UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm.

Currently, paragraph 46.035(i) says: "Subsections (b)(4) [hospitals/nursing homes], (b)(5) [amusement parks], (b)(6) [churches], and (c) [government meetings] do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

Since HB195 removes the license requirement and changes the wording from "carrying a concealed handgun" to "carrying a handgun"...... it says:

(a) A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:

• (1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  (2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the [license holder] person is a participant in the event where [and] a handgun is used in the event;
  (3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
  (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
  (5) in an amusement park;
  (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;
  (7) at any meeting of a governmental entity;
  (8) while intoxicated

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?

[G.A. Heath]

So since HB195 is a supported bill and there are no notes about it's effect with regards to 30.06 like there is in the other ones does that mean the concern you mentioned with bringing OC into 30.06 is not an issue with HB195?

Correct. At least as Charles has outlined it above, HB195 does not incorporate OC into 30.06. What exactly it does do about signage, if anything, I don't know. But as long 30.06 is protected and remains relevant only for CC, then HB195 would be a good bill. However, I wish Charles would give us some detail here if he can, because the text of HB195 (upon my first reading of it) is actually disturbing. Ideally, HB195 would add PC §30.07 to the code, which would be to OC as 30.06 is to CC. So if a business wanted to block ALL carrying into its premises, it would have to post BOTH "big ugly signs", and they would BOTH have to be compliant. ..... but that does not appear to be the case as I read the bill.

Here is a link to the changes that HB195 would make to TPC §46.035: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00195I.htm. Here is a link to TPC §46.035 as it currently stands: (UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm.

Currently, paragraph 46.035(i) says: "Subsections (b)(4) [hospitals/nursing homes], (b)(5) [amusement parks], (b)(6) [churches], and (c) [government meetings] do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

Since HB195 removes the license requirement and changes the wording from "carrying a concealed handgun" to "carrying a handgun"...... it says:

(a) A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:

• (1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  (2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the [license holder] person is a participant in the event where [and] a handgun is used in the event;
  (3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
  (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
  (5) in an amusement park;
  (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;
  (7) at any meeting of a governmental entity;
  (8) while intoxicated

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?

HB195 would not create a 30.07 sign, but it would require a 30.06 sign to prevent licensed concealed carry at the locations listed in it's version of 46.035(a)(3)=40.035(a)(7). Unless I am missing something 30.06 either would apply to unlicensed carry in those specific cases OR there would be no restriction on unlicensed carry in those locations (I suspect the former and not the latter when reading the language). To know for sure we definitely would need Charles to explain it.

[paxton25]

So since HB195 is a supported bill and there are no notes about it's effect with regards to 30.06 like there is in the other ones does that mean the concern you mentioned with bringing OC into 30.06 is not an issue with HB195?

Correct. At least as Charles has outlined it above, HB195 does not incorporate OC into 30.06. What exactly it does do about signage, if anything, I don't know. But as long 30.06 is protected and remains relevant only for CC, then HB195 would be a good bill. However, I wish Charles would give us some detail here if he can, because the text of HB195 (upon my first reading of it) is actually disturbing. Ideally, HB195 would add PC §30.07 to the code, which would be to OC as 30.06 is to CC. So if a business wanted to block ALL carrying into its premises, it would have to post BOTH "big ugly signs", and they would BOTH have to be compliant. ..... but that does not appear to be the case as I read the bill.

Here is a link to the changes that HB195 would make to TPC §46.035: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00195I.htm. Here is a link to TPC §46.035 as it currently stands: (UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm.

Currently, paragraph 46.035(i) says: "Subsections (b)(4) [hospitals/nursing homes], (b)(5) [amusement parks], (b)(6) [churches], and (c) [government meetings] do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

Since HB195 removes the license requirement and changes the wording from "carrying a concealed handgun" to "carrying a handgun"...... it says:

(a) A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:

• (1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  (2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the [license holder] person is a participant in the event where [and] a handgun is used in the event;
  (3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
  (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
  (5) in an amusement park;
  (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;
  (7) at any meeting of a governmental entity;
  (8) while intoxicated

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?

OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.

[Keith B]

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?

OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.

Actually, I don't believe it would. 30.06 specifically states 'concealed' handgun' so it would not apply to a handgun that was openly carried. There is no mention of any modification to section 30.06 in the bill.

[txcharvel]

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?


OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.

There is at least one section of HB195 that needs to be corrected: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/D ... &DocType=B

Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

(a)(3) is on the premises of a correctional facility

Notwithstanding the editing that still needs to happen to this bill...Legally, it might change nothing to 30.06 with regard to concealed carry, but what matters is the public perception and how they react to the law. In this scenario, we will see many more businesses posted 30.06 just to keep out the open carry crowd.

Someone please explain to me how this will not limit the places I can legally carry