Call-To-Action: HB2405 Gutting TPC §30.06

[PaJ]

I sent emails to all including the author. The message to him was slightly modified acknowledging that he was the author but asking him to reconsider his position.

[treadlightly]

I had a nice conversation with Nevarez' office. It was a little like having a nice conversation with a gun prohibitionist, but part of that may just have been the stress of the day. Or maybe not...

Anyway, the staffer told me one problem was the 30.06 sign was huge, to which I pointed out each section of the sign is 12 or 14 inches tall. Under Nevarez' HB2405, the sign would have to be readable and conspicuous, but could be as small as an index card. In fact, his law would make it non-compliant to have a sign larger than 8.5 x 11 inches.

Why, I asked, would you want to prohibit a shopkeeper from helping me stay within the law? Even 8.5 x 11 inches is enough to be hidden by someone standing in front of the sign. I come to a full stop at stop signs. If you made them smaller and easy to overlook, I would probably be guilty of running some of them even though I clearly don't want to.

That line of reasoning seemed to get through to Representative Moody's staffer. She had me help her find (c-1) (3) where the size of the sign is limited to smaller than a sheet of typing paper. The DPS is supposed to come up with size regulations, but are not required to set a single size. Nevarez' law would be completely served by the DPS producing a graphic with the instructions "Print this any size you want, at least 1 inch by 1 inch, but don't you dare get as big as a legal size 8.5 x 14 inch sheet of paper."

There is too much misunderstanding as it is. One staff member (in John Wray's office, I think) told me he was going to get his CHL. He knew he would be able to carry in the Capitol, but in talking to DPS troopers on site he learned committee rooms were off limits.

My understanding is committee rooms are off limits if posted 30.06. No matter which of us is confused, none of us should be.

I think the rule should be carry everywhere, post the exceptions - but have no exceptions automatic. If you can't carry, there should be a sign.

[Hawk99]

All calls made, all who answered were pleasant to talk to, one said their rep was also against.

[Bladed]

Called everyone except Rep Navarez. was told by Rep Wavy and Metcalf aide that they opposed... rest gave non-committal answers...


I am in Austin for a few days... it might be something to watch... know that am allowed in Capital but since that is a govt meeting am I allowed to watch while carrying...

You can carry throughout the Capitol, including in hearing rooms. The law against carrying at a governmental meeting applies only if the meeting is posted 30.06. Committee hearings normally aren't posted. I say "normally" because committees have occasionally discussed the possibility of posting 30.06 at particularly contentions hearings, but I'm not aware of any examples of this actually happening. In fact, I'm not aware of any 30.06 signs being posted in the Capitol since the days when the galleries were secured with metal detectors and posted 30.06 while the respective houses were convened. That went away when the entire building was secured with metal detectors (which CHL holders are allowed to bypass).

[Charles L. Cotton]

There are three areas of Texas law dealing with required signs and firearms. All three are large signs to make sure a person does not inadvertently violate the law.

The signs are:

• TPC §30.06 signs for CHLs;
  TABC 51% for CHLs;
  TABC blue "unlicensed possession of firearms" for everyone other than CHLs.

Contrary to MDA lies, §30.06 signs are not unique in terms of being a large sign.

Chas.

[RetNavy]

Called everyone except Rep Navarez. was told by Rep Wavy and Metcalf aide that they opposed... rest gave non-committal answers...


I am in Austin for a few days... it might be something to watch... know that am allowed in Capital but since that is a govt meeting am I allowed to watch while carrying...

You can carry throughout the Capitol, including in hearing rooms. The law against carrying at a governmental meeting applies only if the meeting is posted 30.06. Committee hearings normally aren't posted. I say "normally" because committees have occasionally discussed the possibility of posting 30.06 at particularly contentions hearings, but I'm not aware of any examples of this actually happening. In fact, I'm not aware of any 30.06 signs being posted in the Capitol since the days when the galleries were secured with metal detectors and posted 30.06 while the respective houses were convened. That went away when the entire building was secured with metal detectors (which CHL holders are allowed to bypass).

thanks Bladed

[SA-TX]

There are three areas of Texas law dealing with required signs and firearms. All three are large signs to make sure a person does not inadvertently violate the law.

The signs are:

• TPC §30.06 signs for CHLs;
  TABC 51% for CHLs;
  TABC blue "unlicensed possession of firearms" for everyone other than CHLs.

Contrary to MDA lies, §30.06 signs are not unique in terms of being a large sign.

Chas.

Ellis County is blessed to have excellent pro-2A members of the Legislature and I wrote to Rep. Wray to encourage him to vote against this ill-conceived change.

SA-TX

[RHenriksen]

Done.

[bigity]

Missed this until just now and am sending faxes, not sure when the committee meets so hopefully it's not too late.

[RHenriksen]

Missed this until just now and am sending faxes, not sure when the committee meets so hopefully it's not too late.

I was told by one office that the committee was meeting this morning, so you & I may both have been too late.

[TexasCajun]

Missed this until just now and am sending faxes, not sure when the committee meets so hopefully it's not too late.

I was told by one office that the committee was meeting this morning, so you & I may both have been too late.

This committee has been taking testimony on one day then voting during a subsequent meeting, so it should not be too late to contact the members.

[jerry_r60]

All calls made other than to Navarez.

[gdanaher]

The committee met at 8 am on Tuesday. By 11 am when I checked on it, they had adjourned and the house was back in session at 10 am. The committee had a slug of bills to review, so they may not have spent much time on each bill. The other thing I question is the lack of support. There is a single co-author. If the bill held much weight one might assume that everyone would be on board, right? Not to say it couldn't pass, but gosh, one co-author?

[TexasCajun]

I'm not sure why y'all are not contacting Nevarez's office. No, he will likely not change his stance or withdraw the bill. But at least we can register our disapproval regarding the bill. I don't want him to be able to truthfully say that his office has received overwhelming support for the bill.

[RHenriksen]

I called Navarez's office, and told the lady there that Texas is one of the only states I know of that criminalizes overlooking a gun buster sign (or did back in 1995-1997, and effectively would again with this bill). Suggested that if they wanted to de-criminalize overlooking the sign, they would be welcome to make it as small as they like!