TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here is the response from my Senator. Kind of non-committal if you ask me:

Mr. Soccerdad:

On behalf of Senator Kolkhorst thank you for contacting her office about HB 560. You have made some good points which she will consider. Thank you again.

Cheryl Tiemann
Central District Director
Senator Lois W. Kolkhorst
P. O. Box 1867
Brenham, Texas 77834
979-251-7888
979-251-7968 Fax

they wrote:

rotor wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:HB308 was a piece of the pie. HB560 is the whole enchilada (as far as carry locations go).

Awesome, thanks! Sounds like we need a full-court press on this one. I'm about to e-mail my state representative, although I know it will do no good because she's an ultra left wing lesbian liberal Democrat social justice warrior type. But she's going to hear from me on this.

Maybe she is a secret member of Pink Pistols.

I hope you're not trying to disparage the Pink Pistols - my husband and I should be the poster boys for why the 51% laws should be repealed after Pulse.

Long story short: if I can be a designated driver and not drink at a bar, why, oh why (Wizard of Oz reference there) can't I also be a designated carrier if I'm not drinking?

Or is our legislature THAT short-sighted?

Nevermind, I think you and they have already answered that question.

sbrawley wrote:How will this effect public schools? Will they be required to post 06/07 signs to keep guns out, if this passes as is?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ELB wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have posted an article titled "HB560 by Rep. Springer: The Most Important Self-Defense Bill Since 2007" ...

Chas.

Very helpful!

One small typo nit: In the table "LTC less likely to commit a crime than the general public" the first line under that reads "21 less likely"; it should read "21 times less likely".

The section that laid out the current restrictions is very helpful to me as well.

good job.

Thanks, I fixed the typo.
Chas.

HB560 does not prevent private property owners form prohibiting the carrying of handguns.

doncb wrote:In plain language, what places where we can't carry now would we be able to carry with this bill? After reading through different things, I haven't been able to figure it out. All of the legalese makes my brain hurt. It almost reads that if there is a 30.06 /07 sign nothing changes.

• School/Educational Institution
• Polling place
• Court/Court offices
• Racetrack
• Secured areas of airports
• Within 1,000 feet of execution of death sentence
• Business that makes at least 51% of revenue from on-premise alcohol consumption sales
• High school, collegiate, professional sporting event or interscholastic event
• Correctional facility
• Private property posted with 30.06 or 30.07 signs
• While intoxicated
• Areas controlled by federal law
• In restricted areas established by public and private colleges and universities.

• Secured areas of airports;
• Correctional facilities;
• While intoxicated;
• In areas controlled by federal law;
• Private property posted with 30.06 or 30.07 signs;
• In restricted areas established by public and private colleges and universities.

Russell wrote:On a different note, I hope we invest about 90% of our lobbying efforts towards this bill. I am personally way more interested in seeing this pass than constitutional carry this session.

locke_n_load wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:As long as I can OC up to door I'm cool with that (as is currently legal).
I prefer to OC due to the ease of carry (have to arm/disarm a lot), and I have a 2 year old. Would like to keep it in OWB holster when dropping off (may include getting out to give a hug) at grade school.
I should probably invest in [prepaid legal] or something similar once she gets to grade school...

That won't do any good. They only help if you use your gun, whether you fire it or not. Just carrying does not qualify as "using".

So [pre-paid legal] or other prepaid services would not help if I was arrested for legally carrying my handgun (but didn't need to draw) by a cop who is not knowledgeable of the law?

That's correct. They claim to only render legal aid when you use a weapon in lawful self-defense. That doesn't include simply carrying at a location and getting arrested for it. They could take up the case to further 2A rights, but they are not obligated to by contract.

Is that just [pre-paid legal] or pretty much all of them?

locke_n_load wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:As long as I can OC up to door I'm cool with that (as is currently legal).
I prefer to OC due to the ease of carry (have to arm/disarm a lot), and I have a 2 year old. Would like to keep it in OWB holster when dropping off (may include getting out to give a hug) at grade school.
I should probably invest in [prepaid legal] or something similar once she gets to grade school...

That won't do any good. They only help if you use your gun, whether you fire it or not. Just carrying does not qualify as "using".

So [pre-paid legal] or other prepaid services would not help if I was arrested for legally carrying my handgun (but didn't need to draw) by a cop who is not knowledgeable of the law?

ELB wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

ELB wrote:Working my way through the bill in detail...

From HB 560 as filed:

SECTION 1. Section 30.06(e), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity [and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035].

The part in bold italics is in strike-thru font in the bill text.

30.07 has identical language, but it is not amended by the bill. If I understand this correctly, then open carry on certain governmental premises and places if those places fall into 46.03 or 46.035? (e.g. schools and institutions of higher learning?)

The bill would exempt LTC holders from 46.03, and it also repeals much of 46.035.

Code: Select all

 SECTION 11.  The following provisions are repealed:
  	             (1)  Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  	             (2)  Sections 411.203 and 411.204, Government Code;
  	             (3)  Section 52.062(b), Labor Code;
  	             (4)  Section 46.03(f), Penal Code, as amended by
  	Chapters 437 (H.B. 910) and 1001 (H.B. 554), Acts of the 84th
  	Legislature, Regular Session, 2015;
  	             (5)  Sections 46.035(b), (c), (f)(1), (i), (k), and
  	(l), Penal Code; and
  	             (6)  Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, as added by
  	Chapters 1214 (H.B. 1889) and 1222 (H.B. 2300), Acts of the 80th
  	Legislature, Regular Session, 2007.

Yes, but that doesn't directly answer my question. Looking at it again tho, it appears that licensed open carry on colleges, universities, junior colleges etc would still be illegal, which falls in line with Mr. Cotton's earlier analysis that the campus carry stuff was left alone.

ELB wrote:Working my way through the bill in detail...

From HB 560 as filed:

SECTION 1. Section 30.06(e), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity [and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035].

The part in bold italics is in strike-thru font in the bill text.

30.07 has identical language, but it is not amended by the bill. If I understand this correctly, then open carry on certain governmental premises and places if those places fall into 46.03 or 46.035? (e.g. schools and institutions of higher learning?)

 SECTION 11.  The following provisions are repealed:
  	             (1)  Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  	             (2)  Sections 411.203 and 411.204, Government Code;
  	             (3)  Section 52.062(b), Labor Code;
  	             (4)  Section 46.03(f), Penal Code, as amended by
  	Chapters 437 (H.B. 910) and 1001 (H.B. 554), Acts of the 84th
  	Legislature, Regular Session, 2015;
  	             (5)  Sections 46.035(b), (c), (f)(1), (i), (k), and
  	(l), Penal Code; and
  	             (6)  Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, as added by
  	Chapters 1214 (H.B. 1889) and 1222 (H.B. 2300), Acts of the 80th
  	Legislature, Regular Session, 2007.

As a law-abiding Texan and a License to Carry holder, I am often forced to disarm and leave my legally-carried handgun in my car while entering specific buildings or zones designated as so-called "gun-free zones." In these zones, the State has determined that my right to self-defense is void. Criminals and terrorists determined to do harm have already shown that they do not care about these laws, which only serve to disarm law-abiding Americans while creating a target-rich environment for those with the will to cause harm.

A nightclub in Orlando. A church in South Carolina. A corporate party in San Bernardino. An elementary school in Connecticut. It's clear that criminals and terrorists prefer gun-free zones, and when a shooting or other assault happens in these zones, they are able to do more damage because their victims are unable to fight back.

Please support HB 560 to reduce the number of gun-free zones and strengthen Texas against crime and terrorism.

TrueFlog wrote:Overall, this looks like a great bill, but there's also a lot in it there I don't understand. Hopefully, someone with more expertise than me can clarify what all it does. I'm especially curious about the implications of removing 56.02(b).

• Nullifies enforcement of gun-free zones on all government property
• Clarifies school activity "portion of a building" and "grounds" prohibition
• Clarifies voting location "portion of a building" prohibition
• Modifies 46.035(a), (d) [first offense], and (e) to be class C misdemeanors
• Exempts LTC holders from 46.03
• Removes 51% sign prohibition (if I'm reading it correctly)