Jason K wrote:I agree with jmra. Reducing the 30.06 penalty would be a good thing to start on this next session along with campus carry and church security. Even if it doesn't pass, it plants a seed for the next session....and a litmus test for the next election cycle. And we should have plenty of time to work on it....considering OC isn't going anywhere.....
Reducing the TPC §30.06 penalty is not a high priority item. I don't see it being filed in 2015, unless it will fit with another bill.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I think I need to clarify one of my posts. As I said, I think reducing the offense category for a TPC §30.06 violation to a Class C Misdemeanor is something that can be done and should be done. However, I'm not suggesting that we'll file such a bill in 2015. There are too many other things that need our attention to start adding to the "To Do List" for the upcoming session.
Chas.
I know it's probably too early but I would be interested in an idea of what we might be shooting for in 2015. I know we hope to get OC moved forward and I assume there will be an attempt to expand campus carry. Is there anything else that you can share at this time? Maybe the Church security issue?
Maybe I should have asked this question in a new thread.
I don't know what will be the "final" legislative agenda, but 2013's HB3218 (elimination of off-limits areas) and SB1324/HB2535 (CHLs and volunteer church security) will be on the list. There are two more matters I consider "major," but I can't make them public. (Please don't send me a PM, I won't be able to respond.)
"Chatter" during the Republic Convention was not encouraging for open-carry. If demonstrations continue, then I predict open-carry is dead in 2015. There's nothing I or anyone can do about it, other than the people who continue to do that which hurts the cause.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:"Chatter" during the Republic Convention was not encouraging for open-carry. If demonstrations continue, then I predict open-carry is dead in 2015. There's nothing I or anyone can do about it, other than the people who continue to do that which hurts the cause.
Chas.
Chas.
Not even OC for CHL's?
Would be great to be able to carry OWB and worry MUCH less about whether my cover garment is blowing in the hot Texas wind.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.! Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
Charles L. Cotton wrote:"Chatter" during the Republic Convention was not encouraging for open-carry. If demonstrations continue, then I predict open-carry is dead in 2015. There's nothing I or anyone can do about it, other than the people who continue to do that which hurts the cause.
Chas.
Chas.
Not even OC for CHL's?
Would be great to be able to carry OWB and worry MUCH less about whether my cover garment is blowing in the hot Texas wind.
Licensed open-carry is the only thing that ever had a chance. Unlicensed open-carry is a pipe dream.
We passed concealed-carry in 1995, but it wasn't until 12 years later that we were able to pass the Motorist Protection Act making it legal to have a handgun in your car without a CHL. Unlicensed open-carry isn't merely about how one can carry a handgun, it's about who can carry and the "who" is everyone. That's a much harder sell both to the general pubic and, more importantly, to the legislature. Extending the open-carry option to CHLs is much easier (well, it was easier) because we can point to what in 2015 will be a 20 year track record for CHLs.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I think I need to clarify one of my posts. As I said, I think reducing the offense category for a TPC §30.06 violation to a Class C Misdemeanor is something that can be done and should be done. However, I'm not suggesting that we'll file such a bill in 2015. There are too many other things that need our attention to start adding to the "To Do List" for the upcoming session.
Chas.
I know it's probably too early but I would be interested in an idea of what we might be shooting for in 2015. I know we hope to get OC moved forward and I assume there will be an attempt to expand campus carry. Is there anything else that you can share at this time? Maybe the Church security issue?
Maybe I should have asked this question in a new thread.
I don't know what will be the "final" legislative agenda, but 2013's HB3218 (elimination of off-limits areas) and SB1324/HB2535 (CHLs and volunteer church security) will be on the list. There are two more matters I consider "major," but I can't make them public.
That first one would definitely be a bigger win than changing the penalty for trespassing.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I think I need to clarify one of my posts. As I said, I think reducing the offense category for a TPC §30.06 violation to a Class C Misdemeanor is something that can be done and should be done. However, I'm not suggesting that we'll file such a bill in 2015. There are too many other things that need our attention to start adding to the "To Do List" for the upcoming session.
Chas.
I know it's probably too early but I would be interested in an idea of what we might be shooting for in 2015. I know we hope to get OC moved forward and I assume there will be an attempt to expand campus carry. Is there anything else that you can share at this time? Maybe the Church security issue?
Maybe I should have asked this question in a new thread.
I don't know what will be the "final" legislative agenda, but 2013's HB3218 (elimination of off-limits areas) and SB1324/HB2535 (CHLs and volunteer church security) will be on the list. There are two more matters I consider "major," but I can't make them public.
That first one would definitely be a bigger win than changing the penalty for trespassing.
In my view, it will be the most significant CHL-related bill to pass since SB60 in 1995.
remington79 wrote:Oldgringo posted a good example. Keep the wording just get rid of the force of law part. If someone is found carrying they are asked to leave. If they don't then they can get a citation. It is that simple. As I said it is not the end of the world if the sign doesn't carry the weight of law. If you don't want someone to carry you ask them to leave. This is the best solution where each party's rights are respected.
Given the strong property rights sentiment in TX, I'm not sure the "what you don't know won't hurt you" approach will fly. What you are telling business owners that don't want firearms on their property is "catch me if you can". Other places have gotten away with that but Texas is not other places. This simply will not pass.
We need to stop fantasizing and get back to reality. Changing the penalty to a class C misdemeanor in 2015 sounds like something that could be accomplished. Maybe in 2017 or 2019 you could get it to a civil penalty (get caught past a 30.06 sign pay $50 - much better than "go directly to jail").
STRONG property rights? Like the governors Trans-Texas corridor? Property WAS lost in that land grab. Not that those poor folk will ever get it back. And yes, I do know it eventually failed, but such is the power of the government to do whatever, thought through or not.
remington79 wrote:Oldgringo posted a good example. Keep the wording just get rid of the force of law part. If someone is found carrying they are asked to leave. If they don't then they can get a citation. It is that simple. As I said it is not the end of the world if the sign doesn't carry the weight of law. If you don't want someone to carry you ask them to leave. This is the best solution where each party's rights are respected.
Given the strong property rights sentiment in TX, I'm not sure the "what you don't know won't hurt you" approach will fly. What you are telling business owners that don't want firearms on their property is "catch me if you can". Other places have gotten away with that but Texas is not other places. This simply will not pass.
We need to stop fantasizing and get back to reality. Changing the penalty to a class C misdemeanor in 2015 sounds like something that could be accomplished. Maybe in 2017 or 2019 you could get it to a civil penalty (get caught past a 30.06 sign pay $50 - much better than "go directly to jail").
STRONG property rights? Like the governors Trans-Texas corridor? Property WAS lost in that land grab. Not that those poor folk will ever get it back. And yes, I do know it eventually failed, but such is the power of the government to do whatever, thought through or not.
You're way off topic.
Not really.
We aren't talking eminent domain laws. We are talking about property owners being able to control what goes on on their own property. Two totally different topics.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
If reducing or repealing 30.06 isn't a priority this upcoming session it is nice to see that getting rid of more prohibited places is on there. Another top priority should be lowering the cost of a CHL. There is no reason it should cost so much. Other states can do it for over half the price. I guess the state isn't ready for Constitutional carry yet is it?
remington79 wrote:If reducing or repealing 30.06 isn't a priority this upcoming session it is nice to see that getting rid of more prohibited places is on there. Another top priority should be lowering the cost of a CHL. There is no reason it should cost so much. Other states can do it for over half the price. I guess the state isn't ready for Constitutional carry yet is it?
My personal view is that the penalty for violation of TPC §30.06 should be reduced, but it is not nor will it ever be a priority. Appropriate language should be added to another bill if/when one is available, but it's not worth spending much political capital on it as a stand-alone bill. I more concerned with expanding firearm rights. Our folks must understand that the argument we'll hear from our opposition is that the NRA/TSRA is arguing for reducing the penalty paid by criminals.
I wish CHL fees could be reduced, but that's not likely now or in the foreseeable future. While the initial license fee is $140 and renewals are $70, many thousands of people are eligible for discounts ranging from 50% to as little as a $25 total fee. This brings the per capita fee far below $140/$70. I just don't think the legislature would be interested in reducing revenue further, at least not without doing away with discounts for veterans and those age 60 and over.
I agree with lowering the penalty for 30.06 as missing a sign shouldn't be a criminal event.
Whatever happened to penalties for improperly posted 30.06 signs? And what about some way of validating a sign is properly posted? It's hard in some cases, to find true ownership of the area that's posted.
XD40 Service in Supertuck
"Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey
GhostTX wrote:I agree with lowering the penalty for 30.06 as missing a sign shouldn't be a criminal event.
Why should people be able to ignore "No Hunting" and other no trespassing signs without criminal penalty?
What if they receive oral notice and still refuse to leave? Should that be legal too?
#1 They wouldn't as PC 30.05 would still apply.
#2 It wouldn't be legal, see #1.
A reasonable argument can be made that locations that are generally open to the public, shouldn't be able to invoke the criminal power of the State to enforce their every regulation. Texas already exempts off-duty LEO's from PC 30.05 where it relates to carrying weapons, and they are exempt from 30.06 by construction of the law. As a private property owner I have no authority to bar off duty LEO's from carrying on my (publicly open) property however much it offends my sensibilities. I could ask them to leave if I somehow discover that they are carrying, but I can't just put up a sign. So how come Texas lets me invoke the criminal power of the state on a CHL w/ a Class A misdemeanor, just by putting up a sign?
I take Charles at his word that a stand alone bill to lower/eliminate the penalty for 30.06 is a legislative non-starter, so I guess someday it could get in some other way.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
That first one would definitely be a bigger win than changing the penalty for trespassing.
)
