TexasCHLforum.com

OK, so let's say, as Charles suggests, that 30.05 renders both 30.06 and 30.07 moot. With the vagueness of the 30.05 signage that's almost opening the door to gunbuster signs. The scary part is I can see an overzealous DA somewhere claiming that that is in fact the proper interpretation of the law. I think there are a few details still up in the air about Constitutional Carry. I don't know if the relationship between LTC and Constitutional Carry were thoroughly hashed out.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm
My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.

Agreed. And as far as I'm concerned its going to be business as usual when the bill becomes law in September. Thanks for the clarification.

Man, there seems to be a truck load of confusion as to exactly how Constitutional Carry is going to impact CHL/LTC going forward. Is this going to be like open carry was a few years ago? After the new wore off it was no longer an issue. I rarely see someone openly carrying anymore.

Does the LTC trump Constitutional Carry or the other way around? If we are given a verbal notice than signage doesn't matter at the point. But I do think the 30.05 verbage could have been more specific. Maybe it would be appropriate to add the verbage like the signs on alcohol consumption have, "the unlicensed possession/carrying of a firearm". I can see businesses putting up a 30.05 thinking that covers all the bases when it actually doesn't. I think the wording is too vague. I would like to know how LTC holders profit from Constitutional Carry. Does it expand in any way where we can carry?