HB 121 - Requires oral notice for 30.06 and 30.07

[PriestTheRunner]

Can somebody explain this one to me...? It looks like a clarification amending subsection H but I can't determine what exactly its doing:

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB121

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of trespass by
certain persons carrying handguns.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 30.06, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (g) to read as follows:
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the license holder was personally given notice by oral
communication described by Subsection (b) and promptly departed
from the property.
SECTION 2. Section 30.07, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (h) to read as follows:
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the license holder was personally given notice by oral
communication described by Subsection (b) and promptly departed
from the property.
SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only
to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed,
and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred
before that date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.

[ralewis]

Can somebody explain this one to me...? It looks like a clarification amending subsection H but I can't determine what exactly its doing:

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB121

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of trespass by
certain persons carrying handguns.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 30.06, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (g) to read as follows:
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the license holder was personally given notice by oral
communication described by Subsection (b) and promptly departed
from the property.
SECTION 2. Section 30.07, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (h) to read as follows:
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the license holder was personally given notice by oral
communication described by Subsection (b) and promptly departed
from the property.
SECTION 3. The change in law made by this Act applies only
to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed,
and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For
purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the
effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred
before that date.
SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.

Looks to me like you have a 'defense to prosecution' for carrying past a sign as long as you departed if told to.

[locke_n_load]

sounds like you can still get cited if they don't tell your orally and just call the cops.

[Maxwell]

For some reason I thought it was always a defense against prosecution if you immediately left when asked.

[oljames3]

For some reason I thought it was always a defense against prosecution if you immediately left when asked.

There is a difference in the offense if the license holder fails to depart, but not a defense against prosecution.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... /PE.30.htm

30.06 (d) and 30.07 (d) both read:
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder was personally given the notice by oral communication described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

[Soccerdad1995]

sounds like you can still get cited if they don't tell your orally and just call the cops.

Unless the cops give you oral notice and you then leave. I think it has already been established that a LEO has authority to give oral notice in cases where there are no signs, etc.

"Sir, I'm sorry but that sign means you cannot carry in here....."

"Thanks officer, I'd like to leave now. Is that OK?"

[Charles L. Cotton]

sounds like you can still get cited if they don't tell your orally and just call the cops.

Correct. HB121 will not make oral notice to leave a requirement.

Chas.

[PriestTheRunner]

sounds like you can still get cited if they don't tell your orally and just call the cops.

Correct. HB121 will not make oral notice to leave a requirement.

Chas.

Chas, I'm not really understanding what this law changes then? Is it just clarifying the 'leave when asked' provision of the current law as it has been enforced? Basically, it clarifies that you may be guilty of Class C Misd. if passing the sign but are not guilty of Class A until asked and refusing to leave?

If the law is already applied that way, why is this one needed?

Thanks

[Papa_Tiger]

HB 121 passed to engrossment in the House today.

[proudpirate]

Here's to hoping it dies in the Texas Senate.

[Papa_Tiger]

Here's to hoping it dies in the Texas Senate.

Why would you hope that a bill that provides a defense to prosecution if you are told to leave (TPC 30.06 and 30.07) and you promptly depart dies in the Senate?

This isn't a sweeping bill, but closes a loophole DAs could use to prosecute you (Class C misdemeanor and up to $200 fine) even if you promptly departed after being given oral notice.

[ELB]

As I read it, it creates a defense to prosecution if you are personally asked to leave, you comply, but you are charged anyway.

As it stands now, there is no defense to prosecution if you leave when asked; leaving only affects the level of offense.

This is what Mr. Cotton put on his list of 2A bills:

HB 121: (Swanson, R,A) “Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of trespass by certain persons carrying handguns.”
Impact: The Bill creates a defense to prosecution for violation of TPC §§30.06 or 30.07, if the defendant was told to leave the property and the defendant did so.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/12/2018
Comments: Currently, an oral notification to leave impacts the level of offense (Class C v. Class A). This Bill would extend that concept to create a defense to prosecution if the Licensee complied with an instruction to leave the premises. It does not create a requirement for oral notification.

I don't know why you want this bill to die. With the Speaker's "friends" in charge, we are only going to get crumbs this session, we might as well get as many as possible.

[proudpirate]

As I read it, it creates a defense to prosecution if you are personally asked to leave, you comply, but you are charged anyway.

As it stands now, there is no defense to prosecution if you leave when asked; leaving only affects the level of offense.

This is what Mr. Cotton put on his list of 2A bills:

HB 121: (Swanson, R,A) “Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of trespass by certain persons carrying handguns.”
Impact: The Bill creates a defense to prosecution for violation of TPC §§30.06 or 30.07, if the defendant was told to leave the property and the defendant did so.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/12/2018
Comments: Currently, an oral notification to leave impacts the level of offense (Class C v. Class A). This Bill would extend that concept to create a defense to prosecution if the Licensee complied with an instruction to leave the premises. It does not create a requirement for oral notification.

I don't know why you want this bill to die. With the Speaker's "friends" in charge, we are only going to get crumbs this session, we might as well get as many as possible.

I guess I mis-read the bill. Now that I read through it again I get it now. Sorry my bad.

[Soccerdad1995]

As I read it, it creates a defense to prosecution if you are personally asked to leave, you comply, but you are charged anyway.

As it stands now, there is no defense to prosecution if you leave when asked; leaving only affects the level of offense.

This is what Mr. Cotton put on his list of 2A bills:

HB 121: (Swanson, R,A) “Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of trespass by certain persons carrying handguns.”
Impact: The Bill creates a defense to prosecution for violation of TPC §§30.06 or 30.07, if the defendant was told to leave the property and the defendant did so.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/12/2018
Comments: Currently, an oral notification to leave impacts the level of offense (Class C v. Class A). This Bill would extend that concept to create a defense to prosecution if the Licensee complied with an instruction to leave the premises. It does not create a requirement for oral notification.

I don't know why you want this bill to die. With the Speaker's "friends" in charge, we are only going to get crumbs this session, we might as well get as many as possible.

While hard to follow, it appears that this bill is a net win, albeit a small one, for LTC holders.