Search found 3 matches

by CleverNickname
Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:45 am
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Questions for OCT
Replies: 111
Views: 25649

Re: Questions for OCT

Not modify the TABC sign, just remove the requirement to post it. The old signs would come down naturally, over time. And couldn't the TABC just tell licensees the sign is no longer required when the license is renewed?
by CleverNickname
Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:38 am
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Questions for OCT
Replies: 111
Views: 25649

Re: Questions for OCT

Ok, looks like you're right. I'd still prefer HB195 (or any other yet-to-be filed bill removing licensure requirements) modify TABC code to remove the sign requirement too, so there's no confusion.
by CleverNickname
Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:23 am
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Questions for OCT
Replies: 111
Views: 25649

Re: Questions for OCT

It appears to me that since HB195 doesn't modify PC 30.06, then 30.06 would still only apply to licensees. This means if HB195 passed, someone who is not a licensee but otherwise legally carrying would not be affected by 30.06 at all. However HB195 also doesn't modify TABC 11.041, so it also appears that non-licensees would be unable to legally carry in any location with a TABC license, whereas licensees would continue to only be limited from carrying at 51% locations.

Also in case nobody noticed, it implicitly allows 18-20 year olds to carry. They just wouldn't be able to get a license, as before.

Return to “Questions for OCT”