TexasCHLforum.com

paxton25 wrote:OK, so the question still remains, if everything you said is true why are people spending so much time and effort in asking if they will support other bills? If I thought someone was going to do damage to my bill I sure wouldn't be calling them out for not supporting it, they just might take me up on it.

G.A. Heath wrote:

paxton25 wrote:I don't get it, if they are everything many in here say they are and the bill they support won't get any traction then why does it seem some are pushing them to support compromise licensed open carry bills? If they are so irrelevant and caustic why call them out for not supporting other bills? From a pure strategy point of view letting them put all of their resources into a bill the experts say won't get passed seems like a good idea. And if you succeed in getting them to support a licensed open carry bill that TSRA/NRA is working to pass and they demonstrate in support of it because you convinced them to do so isn't that going to bring your bill bad press and all the other things you condemn them for?

The problem is not that they can get legislation passed, but that they can do tons of damage to bills, even the ones they support. If we are to get OC passed, in any form, OCT, OCTC, CATI, Texas Carry, and others will need to learn some manners in regards to politics. If/When their bill fails they will go berserk and start attacking anything they see as "an infringement", even if it means that current infringements are lessened w/o adding new ones.

paxton25 wrote:I don't get it, if they are everything many in here say they are and the bill they support won't get any traction then why does it seem some are pushing them to support compromise licensed open carry bills? If they are so irrelevant and caustic why call them out for not supporting other bills? From a pure strategy point of view letting them put all of their resources into a bill the experts say won't get passed seems like a good idea. And if you succeed in getting them to support a licensed open carry bill that TSRA/NRA is working to pass and they demonstrate in support of it because you convinced them to do so isn't that going to bring your bill bad press and all the other things you condemn them for?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

paxton25 wrote:So since HB195 is a supported bill and there are no notes about it's effect with regards to 30.06 like there is in the other ones does that mean the concern you mentioned with bringing OC into 30.06 is not an issue with HB195?

Correct. At least as Charles has outlined it above, HB195 does not incorporate OC into 30.06. What exactly it does do about signage, if anything, I don't know. But as long 30.06 is protected and remains relevant only for CC, then HB195 would be a good bill. However, I wish Charles would give us some detail here if he can, because the text of HB195 (upon my first reading of it) is actually disturbing. Ideally, HB195 would add PC §30.07 to the code, which would be to OC as 30.06 is to CC. So if a business wanted to block ALL carrying into its premises, it would have to post BOTH "big ugly signs", and they would BOTH have to be compliant. ..... but that does not appear to be the case as I read the bill.

Here is a link to the changes that HB195 would make to TPC §46.035: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00195I.htm. Here is a link to TPC §46.035 as it currently stands: (UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm.

Currently, paragraph 46.035(i) says: "Subsections (b)(4) [hospitals/nursing homes], (b)(5) [amusement parks], (b)(6) [churches], and (c) [government meetings] do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

Since HB195 removes the license requirement and changes the wording from "carrying a concealed handgun" to "carrying a handgun"...... it says:

(a) A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:

• (1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  (2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the [license holder] person is a participant in the event where [and] a handgun is used in the event;
  (3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
  (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
  (5) in an amusement park;
  (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;
  (7) at any meeting of a governmental entity;
  (8) while intoxicated

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?