Open Carry Bills 2015

[Beiruty]

8" to 12" is visible and not too big to post.

[mojo84]

How about a separate sign similar in size and wording for OC? If both open and concealed carry are to be banned then it takes two big ugly signs? Honors property rights and makes it somewhat less aesthetically attractive to ban guns completely.

[Bladed]

How about a separate sign similar in size and wording for OC? If both open and concealed carry are to be banned then it takes two big ugly signs? Honors property rights and makes it somewhat less aesthetically attractive to ban guns completely.

That's exactly what HB 164 would do, but such a provision is unlikely to pass. The Texas Legislature supports property rights at least as much as they support gun rights; therefore, I have a hard time imagining them requiring property owners to post TWO big ugly signs in order to prohibit guns on private property.

[A-R]

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."

This is a preposterous change. By the time you have probable cause to believe an imminent threat, it's too late to politely disarm an individual or group.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I've posted the 2015 Bill Status Report and as in prior sessions, there a color-coded and linked version on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; website. The color coding and hyperlink code is different and I don't have time to maintain two separate lists.

I can't go into detail, but I suspect another open-carry bill will be filed in the House and one in the Senate. I think I'll like those better.

Also, strongly support the creation of a new TPC §30.07 that applies only to open-carry. Whether you support open-carry or not, if you want to protect concealed-carry, support a new §30.07.

Chas.

[mojo84]

I will have to think about the wording but I like the idea. Many cops take the current wording as carte blanche approval to disarm someone even if they have no reason to believe it necessary.

[A-R]

I will have to think about the wording but I like the idea. Many cops take the current wording as carte blanche approval to disarm someone even if they have no reason to believe it necessary.

Think about it like this:

"Reasonably believes" ( very generally) is what a LEO needs to frisk someone for safety (Terry v Ohio)

"Probable cause" is what a LEO needs to arrest someone

Probable cause is a much higher standard.

You only need "reasonable belief" (among other tipping points like immediate necessity, imminent threat) to defend yourself with force or deadly force.

Raising the standard to probable cause puts LEO's lives in danger by lessening their ability to control a scene.

And don't forget, we're only talking about temporary disarm not confiscation. Under current law the LEO SHALL return the firearm to the rightful owner upon completion of the interaction (unless there is probable cause to arrest or confiscate).

Currently if a LEO has made contact with, for example, 2 or 3 subjects who are all armed, he can temporarily disarm them for his safety if he can articulate why (outnumbered, previous interaction, known history, articulable body language etc).

Under this new standard, the LEO would be required basically to articulate the equivalent of an arrest merely to temporarily disarm the subjects.

Now, put yourself in the LEOs ' shoes: you're out alone at night with 3 armed subjects who are acting squirrelly ... would YOU feel safe if you were required to let them each keep their guns until you developed enough info to basically arrest them? Or would you prefer to temporarily disarm them while you conducted your investigation, alone?

Certainly LEOs past, present, and future have abused this authority to disarm. But that's not reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

[mojo84]

I understand and appreciate your position. I just have personal knowledge of some officers that make it a standard practice to disarm all chl's when they stop them. We've argued about it and the fact they have to leave the person to go back to their car to write the ticket and leave the person unattended is in their mind creates reasonable belief is necessary for their safety. I disagree with this whole heartily.

[A-R]

I understand and appreciate your position. I just have personal knowledge of some officers that make it a standard practice to disarm all chl's when they stop them. We've argued about it and the fact they have to leave the person to go back to their car to write the ticket and leave the person unattended is in their mind creates reasonable belief is necessary for their safety. I disagree with this whole heartily.

And, depending on circumstances, that's an abuse of the authority. But a few bad apples ...

Correct the misuse. Don't prohibit all LEOs from using a much-needed officer safety provision.

[SewTexas]

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.

it's an open carry bill and those are concealed carry methods, why would they be mentioned?

[G26ster]

I'd strongly support a 30.07 law only if it contained language that invalidated the sign if it did not meet ALL of the requirements for such signage such as wording, location, letter size, etc. With 30.06 I'd bet that those signs are violated hundreds of times a day, but no one is the wiser because the handgun is concealed. With open carry, there would be no doubt who is carrying, so an inadvertent entrance with a handgun, or an improperly worded, or displayed, or inconspicuous sign would land the violator in trouble. I suppose something like, "it is a defense to prosecution if the signage is not in compliance with ALL the requirements..." placed at the end of the statute would suffice. In fact I don't know why such verbiage is not in the 30.06 statute. It sure would avoid all the speculation as to what is or is not enforceable without a test case.

[paperchunker]

Now, put yourself in the LEOs ' shoes: you're out alone at night with 3 armed subjects who are acting squirrelly ... would YOU feel safe if you were required to let them each keep their guns until you developed enough info to basically arrest them? Or would you prefer to temporarily disarm them while you conducted your investigation, alone?

Certainly LEOs past, present, and future have abused this authority to disarm. But that's not reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

In a "CHL only" world he has no reason to fear 1 or 5 armed CHL holders.
In a "Licensed Open Carry" world once he has seen their licenses he has no reason to fear for his safety.
In an "Unlicensed Open or Constitutional Carry" world I can see it going south real quick when he tries to disarm 3 "squirrelly" people by himself.

[mojo84]

Currently if a LEO has made contact with, for example, 2 or 3 subjects who are all armed, he can temporarily disarm them for his safety if he can articulate why (outnumbered, previous interaction, known history, articulable body language etc).

Now, put yourself in the LEOs ' shoes: you're out alone at night with 3 armed subjects who are acting squirrelly ... would YOU feel safe if you were required to let them each keep their guns until you developed enough info to basically arrest them? Or would you prefer to temporarily disarm them while you conducted your investigation, alone?

Certainly LEOs past, present, and future have abused this authority to disarm. But that's not reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Been thinking about your comments quoted here. I think you make a very valid argument. However, in my mind, there is a difference between probable cause to arrest and probable cause (still not sure that is exact correct wording) to disarm. In my mind, the scenario you present in this quote equates to probable cause to disarm (reasonably believes it is necessary for safety).

I believe many officers, as in my case recently when stopped for a light out, the officer promptly returned my chl when I handed him my ID without mentioning anything about my gun. On the other hand, I believe there are quite a few officers believe just the presence of a gun creates the reasonableness necessary to disarm a citizen that is legally carrying.

As time goes on, I believe things will get better. However, until then, I believe better language in the law or better training is needed. I also do not believe people should be subjected to being disarmed even if it is only temporary for the duration of the traffic stop unless it really is reasonably necessary for safety.

Here is a bit of an outlandish extreme scenario but I think it illustrates my point. If all that is considered is officer and others safety, why not just execute a felony stop on all traffic stops. Get them out of the car, prone them out, cuff them, frisk them, disarm them and put them in the patrol car while the officer completes the ticket writing process. That way there should be much less chance of anyone getting hurt. Absurd I know but it is the opposite end of the spectrum from "throwing out the baby with the bath water".

I just think it could be tweaked to clarify when it is justified to disarm someone.

[gljjt]

I will have to think about the wording but I like the idea. Many cops take the current wording as carte blanche approval to disarm someone even if they have no reason to believe it necessary.

Think about it like this:

"Reasonably believes" ( very generally) is what a LEO needs to frisk someone for safety (Terry v Ohio)

"Probable cause" is what a LEO needs to arrest someone

Probable cause is a much higher standard.

You only need "reasonable belief" (among other tipping points like immediate necessity, imminent threat) to defend yourself with force or deadly force.

Raising the standard to probable cause puts LEO's lives in danger by lessening their ability to control a scene.

And don't forget, we're only talking about temporary disarm not confiscation. Under current law the LEO SHALL return the firearm to the rightful owner upon completion of the interaction (unless there is probable cause to arrest or confiscate).

Currently if a LEO has made contact with, for example, 2 or 3 subjects who are all armed, he can temporarily disarm them for his safety if he can articulate why (outnumbered, previous interaction, known history, articulable body language etc).

Under this new standard, the LEO would be required basically to articulate the equivalent of an arrest merely to temporarily disarm the subjects.

Now, put yourself in the LEOs ' shoes: you're out alone at night with 3 armed subjects who are acting squirrelly ... would YOU feel safe if you were required to let them each keep their guns until you developed enough info to basically arrest them? Or would you prefer to temporarily disarm them while you conducted your investigation, alone?

Certainly LEOs past, present, and future have abused this authority to disarm. But that's not reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I agree. Have some LEOs disarmed CHL holders unnecessarily? Sure, but I suspect the vast majority use the law as intended. That has been my anecdotal experience. IMO there are bigger fish to fry. I wouldn't waste any equity on this.