Call-To-Action: HB2405 Gutting TPC §30.06

[jerry_r60]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

Just because I won't be punished, if the code says I should not be carrying past the sign because the business owner doesnt' want me in there, I would not. I'd be happy that I wouldn't be in trouble if I missed a sign.

[Beiruty]

criminal trespass by CHL has penalty and CHLer would lose his CHL. If there is no Penalty for 30.06 then the sign is advisory and legally inconsequential.

[steveincowtown]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

Just because I won't be punished, if the code says I should not be carrying past the sign because the business owner doesnt' want me in there, I would not. I'd be happy that I wouldn't be in trouble if I missed a sign.

Hold on. I changed my mind already. Even though 30.06 wouldn't apply, wouldn't it just revert back to 30.05? And ....

2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

[Bladed]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

Just because I won't be punished, if the code says I should not be carrying past the sign because the business owner doesnt' want me in there, I would not. I'd be happy that I wouldn't be in trouble if I missed a sign.

Hold on. I changed my mind already. Even though 30.06 wouldn't apply, wouldn't it just revert back to 30.05? And ....

2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

Removing the criminal penalty associated with PC Section 30.06 wouldn't necessarily change PC Section 30.05, which currently states:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

With that said, I seriously doubt that the Texas Legislature is going to remove all criminal penalties associated with PC Section 30.06.

[jerry_r60]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

Just because I won't be punished, if the code says I should not be carrying past the sign because the business owner doesnt' want me in there, I would not. I'd be happy that I wouldn't be in trouble if I missed a sign.

Hold on. I changed my mind already. Even though 30.06 wouldn't apply, wouldn't it just revert back to 30.05? And ....

2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

Removing the criminal penalty associated with PC Section 30.06 wouldn't necessarily change PC Section 30.05, which currently states:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun.

With that said, I seriously doubt that the Texas Legislature is going to remove all criminal penalties associated with PC Section 30.06.

The discussion that was going on in the testimony wasn't just removing the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06, it was a modified version with substantial change to the sign requirements. The bill may not pass however there was testimony and then a couple comments between the committee memebers suggesting the idea that the bill would be more palatable with an amendment removing the penalty.

[ELB]

I would be wary of a late-breaking change that alleges to remove the criminal penalty in exchange for weakening the sign requirement. Specifically, I would be wary that other sections of the law could used to criminally penalize going past a sign, which is what I think some previous posters were bringing up or asking questions about.

If TSRA/Charles examines the changes and gives a , then OK, but short of that, I'd say this bill needs to stop.

It would be fun to see an bill that started out trying to make things difficult for CHL'ers turned into a positive 2A step forward, tho.

[jerry_r60]

I would be wary of a late-breaking change that alleges to remove the criminal penalty in exchange for weakening the sign requirement. Specifically, I would be wary that other sections of the law could used to criminally penalize going past a sign, which is what I think some previous posters were bringing up or asking questions about.

If TSRA/Charles examines the changes and gives a , then OK, but short of that, I'd say this bill needs to stop.

It would be fun to see an bill that started out trying to make things difficult for CHL'ers turned into a positive 2A step forward, tho.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

[TexasCajun]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. There's no way that Rep Nevarez would be willing to take the teeth out of 30.06 without some ulterior motive. Since the Kory Watkins stunt painted him as the Mom's poster-boy he's itching to find a way to stick it to Texas gun owners.

[jerry_r60]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. There's no way that Rep Nevarez would be willing to take the teeth out of 30.06 without some ulterior motive. Since the Kory Watkins stunt painted him as the Mom's poster-boy he's itching to find a way to stick it to Texas gun owners.

It was frustrating to hear someone testifying against the bill to so easily give an opening to advance the bill. Specially when it was from someone representing a 2A organization.

[Beiruty]

This does not serve our CHL rights. So, I hope it would be shut down in Committee.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. There's no way that Rep Nevarez would be willing to take the teeth out of 30.06 without some ulterior motive. Since the Kory Watkins stunt painted him as the Mom's poster-boy he's itching to find a way to stick it to Texas gun owners.

If an F-rated anti-gun Democrat promotes removing penalties for gun-related crimes, warning flags should be waiving!

Remember also that OCT wants all signage for open-carry and concealed carry to be the same. They want to force businesses to either allow everyone or no one to carry. SB342, the alleged "OCT bill," guts TPC §30.06 and applies it to both open and concealed carry. It's no surprise that they testified that removing the penalty would cause OCT to support HB2405. Some OCT "members" have taken to twitter to attack Alice Tripp and TPC §30.06 as attacking private property rights.

Chas.

[TexasCajun]

Testimony is over. The bill author closed with an opening for an amendment to take away the criminal penalty, that's what it sounded like to me. If this bill passed, I'd prefer that amendment than not, but It would be better to not have the bill and work to remove the criminal penalty from the existing 30.06.

Really? If there is no criminal penalty they can make the gun busters sign any sign that says "pull" or "push" and it is just fine by me.

That's a trap. Step 1) repeal the size and specific wording requirements for 30.06 signs as well as the penalties; step 2) CHLs ignore the signs; step 3) add criminal penalties to TPC §30.06 in 2017 because the law has no teeth and CHLs ignore property owners wishes. Also, why should TPC 30.05 have criminal penalties, but not TPC §30.06

Come on folks, this isn't hard to figure out.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. There's no way that Rep Nevarez would be willing to take the teeth out of 30.06 without some ulterior motive. Since the Kory Watkins stunt painted him as the Mom's poster-boy he's itching to find a way to stick it to Texas gun owners.

If an F-rated anti-gun Democrat promotes removing penalties for gun-related crimes, warning flags should be waiving!

Remember also that OCT wants all signage for open-carry and concealed carry to be the same. They want to force businesses to either allow everyone or no one to carry. SB342, the alleged "OCT bill," guts TPC §30.06 and applies it to both open and concealed carry. It's no surprise that they testified that removing the penalty would cause OCT to support HB2405. Some OCT "members" have taken to twitter to attack Alice Tripp and TPC §30.06 as attacking private property rights.

Chas.

Nice of them to advance the MDA narrative.

[mojo84]

Here's another interesting tweet.

@usgunviolence6: Head of @OpenCarryTexas & convicted criminal @cjgrisham confirms has PTSD - his guns shld be removed http://abcn.ws/1sHNI05" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #gunsense :

And another one.

@shannonrwatts: "Open carry legislation: It's a white thing" http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/g ... er-premium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; via @HoustonChron #gunsense #txlege

[RoyGBiv]

And another one.

@shannonrwatts: "Open carry legislation: It's a white thing" http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/g ... er-premium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; via @HoustonChron #gunsense #txlege

So much spin. I'm dizzy from reading that.