Open Carry Bills 2015

[locke_n_load]

I've seen 4 Bills so far:

HB 106 by Flynn - Adds licensed open carry with the same restrictions as conceal carry, looks like 30.06 goes for both concealed and open carry. Requires 2 point retention on holster for Open Carry.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB106" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click on the text tab to actually read the bill.

HB 195 by Stickland - Constitutional carry, concealed or openly without a license. Includes definition of intoxicated to be per 49.01 (0.08%). It also looks like they leave in the ability to get a CHL, and that possessing a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, is not probable cause. I cannot tell if they have removed 30.06 either (they leave in the reference for amusement parks, churches, and hospitals, but I do not see the main section for 30.06 in the bill).
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB195" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click on Text to read the actual bill.

HB 164 by White - similar to 106, licensed open carry. Does not have the 2 point retention holster requirement and creates a 30.07 sign just for OC. Best licensed OC bill I think I have read so far.

HB 291 by Huberty - almost word for word the same as 106 - 30.06 goes for OC, 2 point retention holster required as well.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB291" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

106/291 are not passing as-is, since 30.06 is then tied to open and concealed carry. EDIT: 2 point holster requirement is terrible.
195, I think the addition of intoxication definition is a great thing

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Reports/General.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to find all bills listed so far (be sure to hit the 2015 Legislature drop down).

[RoyGBiv]

HB 195 by Sticland - Constitutional carry, concealed or openly without a license. Includes definition of intoxicated to be per 49.01 (0.08%). It also looks like they leave in the ability to get a CHL, and that possessing a firearm, concealed or unconcealed, is not probable cause. I cannot tell if they have removed 30.06 either (they leave in the reference for amusement parks, churches, and hospitals, but I do not see the main section for 30.06 in the bill).
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB195" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click on Text to read the actual bill.

That is a big, no, GIANT chunk of chew. Other than doing away with the 51%-location restriction, I don't see any big targets missing.
I doubt there's any realistic chance of this passing, but, I'd gladly work for it if someone credible told me it could happen legislatively.

Also... If you do away with the need for a license, then 30.06 becomes obsolete, as it only applies to license holders in its current form.
I don't see that addressed here, by intention, I assume.

Making Trespass a Misdemeanor would also be great.

[ronin]

Making Trespass a Misdemeanor would also be great.

Done! Trespassing is now a misdemeanor.

[RoyGBiv]

Making Trespass a Misdemeanor would also be great.

Done! Trespassing is now a misdemeanor.

I meant.... violation... citation.... "infraction"?

[ShepherdTX]

I was reading through HB 106 and I have a huge concern about the changes to 30.06

It looks like they stripped out this

[(3) "Written communication" means:
[(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
[(B) a sign posted on the property that:
[(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
[(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
[(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.]

And replaced it with this:

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a) [this section], a person
receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with
apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the
person by oral communication or written communication that must
consist of:
(1) a card or other document on which is written
language indicating that pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed or unconcealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, may not enter the property with a concealed
handgun or with any handgun, whether concealed or not, as
applicable;
(2) a sign posted on the property that:
(A) includes the language described by
Subdivision (1) of this subsection in both English and Spanish;
(B) appears in contrasting colors with block
letters at least one inch in height; and
(C) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

I read that as someone can put up a gunbuster sign that simply says, "No guns per 30.06"
I am concerned that it appears to take away the specific wording that clearly lets us know we can't carry.

[Bladed]

At first blush, it looks to me as though both HB 106 by Rep. Flynn and HB 164 by Rep. White create issues regarding signage. Again, I've just glanced at these bills, but it looks to me as though HB 106 would incorporate open carry into PC Sec. 30.06, meaning that businesses that want to prohibit open carry would also have to prohibit concealed carry, and HB 164 creates a separate signage requirement (PC Sec. 30.07) for open carry, meaning that businesses that want to prohibit both open and concealed carry would have to post two large signs (this is highly unlikely to pass).

Unless I'm missing something, HB 195 by Rep. Stickland wisely leaves the signage requirements alone.

[Bladed]

I was reading through HB 106 and I have a huge concern about the changes to 30.06

It looks like they stripped out this

[(3) "Written communication" means:
[(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
[(B) a sign posted on the property that:
[(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
[(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
[(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public.]

And replaced it with this:

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a) [this section], a person
receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with
apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the
person by oral communication or written communication that must
consist of:
(1) a card or other document on which is written
language indicating that pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code
(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed or unconcealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, may not enter the property with a concealed
handgun or with any handgun, whether concealed or not, as
applicable;
(2) a sign posted on the property that:
(A) includes the language described by
Subdivision (1) of this subsection in both English and Spanish;
(B) appears in contrasting colors with block
letters at least one inch in height; and
(C) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly
visible to the public.

I read that as someone can put up a gunbuster sign that simply says, "No guns per 30.06"
I am concerned that it appears to take away the specific wording that clearly lets us know we can't carry.

Yes, I interpreted it the same way. I think this may be the type of more-harm-than-good bill that Charles was saying NRA will not let pass without amendments.

[MeMelYup]

No!!! HBO-106
This bill completely changes 30.06 and deletes 30.05.

[ELB]

Accumulated thoughts on first reading of HB 106:

1. Seems like it would have been easier to strike the word "concealed" rather than add "or unconcealed".... I guess instead of "OC", Texas would have "UC".

Read strictly, will this mean you will have a license to carry a concealed OR a concealed handgun...but not both? Two different licenses? I doubt that was the intent, but applying the "Rosenthal as D.A." test to this makes me wonder...

2. 411.171 is amended to apparently require a holster on the belt or shoulder with a two-point retention system. I really don't think they should go there with trying to specify retention systems, that really opens up a lot of definition problems (is friction-fit a retention device?).

That would rule out things like clip-draws and the trigger guard covers and such (for OC/UC).

Also, it eliminates one of the advantages that have been used to promote OC, that of not breaking the law if a concealed handgun is accidently exposed (yes I know unintentional display is not illegal, but intent can be argued in court). You know have the crime of unconcealed carry with the wrong kind of holster. Thus, you could not simply choose to go OC (intentionally displaying) or CC with most (non-retention) CC rigs. Ths part should never have appeared. If something has to be said about retention, put the onus on the carrier to not allow his handgun to be snatched and drive on.

3. Section 411.173(b) is the section on negotiating reciprocity agreements. "or unconcealed" is simply added to this section. But will this require renegotiation of some reciprocity agreements? Will a person whose home state allows only concealed carry be able to "unconceal carry" in Texas?

4.. Section 30.06 does remove the specificity of the sign requirements. Fail. And altho it seems to bifurcate into concealed and unconcealed handgun sections, both essentially say that if you are "effectively communicated" that you can't carry concealed, you can't UC either, and vice versa. ??? Seems to a poor job on this section.

5. Section 46.02(a-1), the Motorist's Protection Act part, still says a handgun may not be in plain view....unless it is "on" (not "about") a licensed person. So even if you are licensed for open...er unconcealed carry, you can't put your gun in a holster screwed down to the console or some such. Has to be in your belt or shoulder holster with two points of "resistance".

[TVGuy]

What bout HB 164? Haven't seen that one mentioned. Reading now.

[ELB]

In addition to what locke_n_load pointed out, Stickland's HB 195 also raises the requirement for when an officer may disarm someone, from "reasonably believes" it is necessary to protect the licensee, officer, or others, to "has probable cause to believe the person [with a handgun] poses an imminent threat to themselves [sic], the officer, or another individual."

[locke_n_load]

At first blush, it looks to me as though both HB 106 by Rep. Flynn and HB 164 by Rep. White create issues regarding signage. Again, I've just glanced at these bills, but it looks to me as though HB 106 would incorporate open carry into PC Sec. 30.06, meaning that businesses that want to prohibit open carry will also have to prohibit concealed carry, and HB 164 creates a separate signage requirement (PC Sec. 30.07) for open carry, meaning that businesses that want to prohibit both open and concealed carry would have to post two large signs (this is highly unlikely to pass).

Unless I'm missing something, HB 195 by Rep. Stickland wisely leaves the signage requirements alone.

Thanks for the heads up on 164, added to the OP. 164 adds licensed open carry, no holster retention requirement, and makes a 30.07 sign. Much better chance of passing than 106.

[ELB]

What bout HB 164? Haven't seen that one mentioned. Reading now.

I see it does the 'add "or unconcealed"' thing through out as well. At least the definition of "unconcealed carry" leaves out the "points of resistance" bit, but still restricts open carry to belt or shoulder holsters.

Provides a whole new signage requirement, 30.07, that is basically 30.06 for unconcealed carry.

Again under the MPA portion requires an unconcealed handgun to be on the licensee's body.

The only way to intentionally unconceal a handgun is by carrying in belt or shoulder holster -- again no clipdraws etc.

I wonder again about the reciprocity agreements and proclamations - re-written to accommodate UC?\

There is still language about categories of handguns for which the licensee is qualified. I thought we did away with that? Is someone using old text as a baseline to modify?

[mr1337]

I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

[MeMelYup]

I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?