TexasCHLforum.com

It was just posted on OCT fb.
By CJ Grisham:

This is the legislation that Open Carry Texas is sponsoring to get open carry passed in Texas. It accomplishes several goals: legalizing the open carry of ALL firearms; removing exemptions of where off-duty officers, legislators, judges, prosecutors, etc can carry (If a citizen can't carry to a particular place, neither can anyone else); clarifies the disorderly conduct statute to ensure that open carry in and of itself isn't an arrestable offense; removes TABC laws that bar people from carrying into establishments that sell alcohol (for example, I do NOT drink at all and should be able to defend myself while eating at the Olive Garden in spite of the fact they sell alcohol); removes restrictions on types of knives that can legally be carried; and enjoins state agencies with municipalities under state pre-emption of firearms regulation (in other words, DPS can't just decide to ban the bearing of firearms on capitol grounds). Please contact your state senator and representative and ask them to support this legislation.

Doc of proposed act is attached:

Well, there is a stout way to ensure law enforcement support of the bill by sarcastically naming the act after a police officer who made an arrest.

I also noticed a typo at first glance.

Looks like amateur hour developed in a vacuum.

Here we go again. Stupidity in motion.

Way too many repealed statutes to get any interest from lawmakers IMO.

This is an unlicensed open-carry bill that has absolutely no chance of passage. Elected officials who have pledged support for open-carry based their support on removing the concealment requirement for CHLs and changing the game now is a mistake.

Although there are rare exceptions, best practice is best to keep the focus of a bill narrow. Also, one should not unnecessarily introduce controversial elements that will draw attention to and support away from the true goal.

In this case, the proposed bill does too many things and it even violates its own caption making it subject to a valid point-of-order. The caption reads "relating to the authority of a person to openly carry the [sic] handgun" but the bill covers many subjects unrelated to openly carrying a handgun. An anti-gunner would definitely call a point-of-order and it would be sustained.

Open-carry supporters do not want law enforcement to oppose this bill. LEOs still have a lot of clout in the Legislature. LEOs acknowledge that the CHL program has been a huge success in Texas and open-carry by CHLs will draw far less LEO opposition than unlicensed open-carry. Removing the prohibition on carrying "illegal knives" is also a mistake as it will generate a lot of emotional backlash both from the public and LEOs.

I agree that CHLs should be able to carry everywhere a LEO can carry and that's why I drafted a bill that became HB3218 last session. But as I already noted, it's important to keep bills clean and narrowly focused. There will be another attempt to reduce the off-limits areas for CHL's but that will be in a separate bill. Why risk both open-carry and reduced off-limits areas by combining them in one bill? Unnecessary provisions give opponents in the Legislature greater opportunity to build opposition and kill the bill.

I do agree with fixing the disorderly conduct problem, but not by modifying current provisions. TPC §42.01(a)(8) simply needs to be repealed. It's unnecessary because other charges are available. It is also ambiguous and it is abused by law enforcement.

I could go on, but anyone reading the bill can see it would do far more than legalize open-carry of handguns and each additional step decreases the chance of passage.

Also, I don't know the details of Mr. Grishim's arrest as well as many others, but if the name that OTC used for the file (bill) published on their website is the name of the arresting officer, it's not only unproductive, it's political suicide for the bill. If people answer OTC's call to contact elected officials, then some percentage of them are going to call the bill by its file name, i.e. "the Steve Ermis Act" rather than the open-carry bill. That will be viewed by many in the Legislature as insulting to LEOs and childish. Why risk the ultimate goal just to insult a particular officer?

I don't go to my dentist to have him perform my annual health checkup; I go to my internist because he knows how to conduct annual checkups.

Chas.

Unless there is a change in the speakership, both the OC bill and a bill to reduce prohibited places for a CHL holder are wastes of time and political capital.

Thanks Charles. As always very insightful. I for one have always been quiet on OC in Texas. I keep my opinions on this to my self for several reasons. Mainly because I don't ever see myself in a position to open carry. I would only carry concealed. But that said I would never be against open carry for those who prefer. If a bill comes before the people in Austin I would support it and advise my rep as such.

I don't understand this "SECTION 2. Section 46.02(6), Penal Code, is repealed." Can anyone enlighten me?

Note, I posted this thread to share info and I am in noway supporting this proposed document as is and for the same justification Chas provided. Chose wisely win your war, one battle at a time.

Counterproductive.

Do the folks that drafted that know NOTHING about the legislative process?

MeMelYup wrote:I don't understand this "SECTION 2. Section 46.02(6), Penal Code, is repealed." Can anyone enlighten me?

Yeah, they don't know what they heck they are putting together. Just a bunch of improperly compiled amateur wishes with typos and references to nonexistent sections.

People have to understand that politics is the art of the possible. As usual, Charles hit the nail on the head. Many who continually opine about the problems is Washington complain about lumping too many things together in a single bill. That is exactlky what this proposed bill does. For OC to pass in the near future, the bill must have a laser focus on that issue and yes, a compromise to SOME supporters of, at least for this session of the legislature, restricting it to CHL carriers. Then in later sessions we can work to have this bill opened up just as has been done with the CHL.

How do some states have OC and it apparently works just fine.

ldj1002 wrote:How do some states have OC and it apparently works just fine.

They have Less large cities? For example, such as Vermont, NH and Alaska

Beiruty wrote:

ldj1002 wrote:How do some states have OC and it apparently works just fine.

They have Less large cities? For example, such as Vermont, NH and Alaska

And most states that have Open Carry allow the individual cities to enact ordinances banning open carry, so you just don't know from city to city if open carry is legal in that town. Makes it very hard to know where you can and can't carry.