TexasCHLforum.com

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I'm truly upset that campus carry or hb308 aren't getting a fair shake. It's really a big pile of bull that there are magic lines that we can't walk past and be on public property owned by Texans and be able to defend ourselves. I really thought there was a decent shot for open carry and a still decent shot for campus carry.

The machine fails us again. It will be a miracle if they get anything done in the last four weeks. I hope I'm wrong and hb937 or sb11 gets moving. Hb308 would be best, but I think that is gone...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Okay, I'll say just a little more, then I'll shut up.

Rep. Stickland, OCT and CATI are strongly hinting if not outright claiming that the Dutton Amendment has "unintentionally" achieved unlicensed open-carry. There are several problems with this claim. First, Stickland had nothing to do with the Dutton Amendment; it was written by Rep. Dutton and Rep. Rinaldi. Stickland had nothing to do with it, so his claim is . . . well, everyone knows what it is.

Secondly, are OCT/CATI and Stickland encouraging people to commit a crime by carrying a handgun without a license? While they will claim otherwise, that's the only rational interpretation of the claim that the inability of law enforcement to inquire about a license allows unlicensed people to carry a handgun. This gives some very important insight into the character and mindset of the people and organizations claiming the Dutton gave us backdoor unlicensed-carry. Dutton offered it to prevent harassment, but the zealots want to use it to promote lawlessness.

Finally, when one allows their ego and self-aggrandizement to take priority over the cause, one often shoots themselves and their cause in the proverbial foot. This false claim so proudly hailed by a vocal few has energized many in law enforcement to get involved with the goal of stripping the Dutton Amendment in the Senate. In doing so, they don't have to claim a desire to engage in racial profiling; they are arguing that they want to prevent unlawful activity sanctioned by OCT and Stickland. Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant OCT/CATI/Stickland!

Now I'll shut up, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Chas.

CJD wrote:Too bad the amended change to 30.06 wouldn't become enacted until Jan.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?

Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?

Absolutely!

Chas.

and if it did would that open up killing the Bill in a state supreme court?

Probably not since the local opt-out provision could be separated from the rest of the law. Local opt-out provisions were DOA from the beginning and that was nothing more than grandstanding for voters in their districts.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?

Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?

Absolutely!

Chas.

CJD wrote:What makes Reps vote for these good amendments, but then vote against the bill?

thatguy wrote:

Tracker wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

If a business wants to hinder my ability to protect myself with an elective sign that provides a false sense of security then I expect that business to post signage according to the statute.

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

jerry_r60 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:So the amendment to change 30.06 passed, does that by default also change 30.07?

The amendment's author only mentioned 30.06, not open carry. So if HB910 passes with this amendment, 30.06 will still apply to CC, but with a somewhat lesser penalty, and no mention of how it applies to OC.

That's what I gathered. So if I followed that, 30.07 still has the Class A penalty but concealed carry gets the lesser penalty.