Call-To-Action: HB2405 Gutting TPC §30.06

[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.

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.

I know what the discussion was about. My comments were in reply to the suggestion that removing the criminal penalty associated with PC Section 30.06 would automatically make PC Section 30.05 applicable to concealed carry.

[G.A. Heath]

For those who are crying that 30.06 is a violation of private property rights, let me put this forward (An old post of mine revised for this debate):

You have multiple classes of property in reality, in this case we will consider three: Private Property, Public Property, Commercial Property (Privately owned, publicly accessible). All property is subject to some regulation, zoning laws are one good example, while public property is perhaps the most regulated seeing as how it is government controlled. Private property is not subject to much regulation, and is often considered by the public to be unregulated. Finally the commercial property is a hybrid of private and public property and is subject to quite a bit of regulation. Commercial property owners can't bar customers based on race, they have to ensure that their buildings and parking lots have sufficient access for disabled customers, They can not force employees or customers to vote for one candidate over another, and so on. Texas Penal Code Section 30.06 is a minor regulation that prevents property owners from hiding signage that could result in someone loosing many of their rights along with their freedom. A concealed handgun license holder is expected to know and comply with the laws that apply to them, a drivers license holder is expected to know and comply with the laws that apply to them. The same applies to a school teacher, TABC licensee, business owner, ect. Business owners, small and large, have always benefited from clearly written and very specific laws which Texas Penal Code 30.06 is. Large signage requirements are not rare nor are they unique, but they are in the best interest of the public especially when the requirements for such signage are clearly written and not subject to fiat by a government agency as HB2405 would make 30.06.

[joe817]

Well put G.A. ! I totally agree!

[K5GU]

Regarding TPC 30.06 as it is today, I don't see any positive changes needed to it, other than maybe make the offense a Class B instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

[carlson1]

Regarding TPC 30.06 as it is today, I don't see any positive changes needed to it, other than maybe make the offense a Class B instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

I think it should be a Class C.

[Papa_Tiger]

Regarding TPC 30.06 as it is today, I don't see any positive changes needed to it, other than maybe make the offense a Class B instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

I think it should be a Class C.

That is one of the improvements in HB308. Class C unless a repeat offense in which case it would be Class B.

The more I read and understand, the more I realize how GOOD HB308 is for Texas CHLs. Too bad it is languishing in committee right now.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00308I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[K5GU]

Regarding TPC 30.06 as it is today, I don't see any positive changes needed to it, other than maybe make the offense a Class B instead of a Class A misdemeanor.

I think it should be a Class C.

That is one of the improvements in HB308. Class C unless a repeat offense in which case it would be Class B.

The more I read and understand, the more I realize how GOOD HB308 is for Texas CHLs. Too bad it is languishing in committee right now.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00308I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep. Some of these specs may be in there to get it passed, eh?

[Dave2]

Testimony given in support of the bill just quoted the survey we had on this site, saying people would intentionally walk past a non-compliant sign.

Yeah, this is why I voiced my concern about that survey.

We either have spies, moles, or both on this site.

It's a public site... saying we have spies here is kinda like accusing the Russians of spying on us because they read the New York Times.

[jerry_r60]

Testimony given in support of the bill just quoted the survey we had on this site, saying people would intentionally walk past a non-compliant sign.

Yeah, this is why I voiced my concern about that survey.

We either have spies, moles, or both on this site.

It's a public site... saying we have spies here is kinda like accusing the Russians of spying on us because they read the New York Times.

Agree, and to some extent, I give them credit for coming over and reading what's here, educating themselves on what "the other side" says. That may not be their motive but to wade through and find the quotes, they must see other stuff too. If I'm against someone else in politics, war, debate I'd want to know how they think, what information they use etc so I can counter. We should assume that takes place here.

[Grownassman]

Since the 30.06 amendment to HB910 was tabled would that pretty much kill HB2405 ?

[RoyGBiv]

Since the 30.06 amendment to HB910 was tabled would that pretty much kill HB2405 ?

"Left Pending in Committee" = Dead, I believe.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB2405" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;