TexasCHLforum.com

Altho I suppose legislation is normally named after it author, I am beginning to think of Dutton's amendment as the Acevedo Amendment...

joe817 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Delay for more time to file additional amendments??

I took it to mean they are still working on finalizing amendment 18.

That's already been voted on favorably. It would take another amendment to change it now.

It has to be something bigger than that, and bigger than the implementation date. HB308 would be lovely, if there is 4/5s support for it. I haven't reread it lately, but IIRC it also covers campus carry. It would be lovely to see the anti's heads explode if it went forward. It would regenerate a fight in the Senate, because the whole bill will have to go through the Senate as well.

I suspect it is something lesser than that tho. Would love to be wrong.

ELB wrote: ....

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.

It is always gratifying when one's peers on the Forum quote my utterances as an example to look to;

It is bit less gratifying when I actually read my quoted words and realize I fat-fingered some errors into it. e.g. "miss enter" - shades of GW (although I always though misunderestimated was pretty cool, whether he actually said it or not).

Ahem. Let me try this again.

Under current 30.06, you are strictly liable if you are found carrying a concealed handgun on private property that is correctly posted with a sign that meets the statutory requirements. No one has to prove you saw the sign. Presence on property +CHL gun + legal sign + cops arrest you for it = BOOM. Class A misdemeanor, year in jail, loss of license. Done. (note that this all presumes the police get involved and arrest you).

Under the amendment, under the same circumstances, you are still strictly liable, but the penalty is significantly lowered -- to Class C, $200 fine, do not go to jail. The police would have to arrest you immediately.

Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

This is a big difference, and makes a poorly constructed law much better. I agree the strict liability part is still there, that has not changed, but the penalty for it has been significantly reduced, and now other elements have to be proved to increase it. The law has not been improved to perfection, but it mo' bettah!

stevie_d_64 wrote:Minor spin???

http://www.click2houston.com/news/texas ... s/32431426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spin? Actually looks like a pretty accurate and straightforward article? for once.

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.

CrimsonSoul wrote:That amendment makes it look like if they are on the property and are told that a concealed handgun isn't welcome there then they are automatically guilty without being given a chance to leave?

If you walk past a 30.06 sign you are already guilty even if you didn't see it. This amendment reduces the penalty for that. If you are subsequently receive notice (i.e. are told to leave because of your concealed gun or you obviously see the sign), then the penalty goes back up.

Butt chewing in progress....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
If he had said that, then the amendment would have been adopted. Some things are best left unsaid.

Chas.

Really? It looked like to me he provided no reason whatsoever to NOT adopt the amendment. I just figured the only reason it didn't get adopted was that the supporters realize the fewer amendments they tack on, the less likely it will be a problem to get it through the Senate.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:That wasn't a very good retort by Phillips.

The answer is 'no, LEO do not have the ability to just stop anyone seen with a open carried gun'. That came across as a little weasely.

tex

That answer would have given support to the amendment. Phillips correctly said HB910 doesn't change current law on that issue.

Chas.

Actually I think the correct answer is "Simply being observed carrying a handgun, openly or concealed, does not provide any more cause to assume an illegal lack of license than observing someone driving a car does." I was surprised at how much trouble Rep Phillips had, but it's been a long day for him, I'm sure.

joe817 wrote:Amendment 16: Requirement to display a license/badge/sash, etc

No actually it says a peace officer can stop anyone determined to have a gun regardless of how it is carried, demand a license, and disarm them while doing so.

thechl wrote:What happens when today is over? Is a third reading automatic (when), or does Calendars have to be involved again? Can amendments be offered at the third reading?
Thanks

Amendments at the 3rd reading require a higher majority, 2/3 I believe, rather than just a simple majority.

v7a wrote:Does Texas recognize any drivers license issued by California? Including those that California are now issuing to illegal aliens? I'm sure Democrats will get right on a bill to not recognize those (since they're issued under a standard less strict than Texas)

True. As to the argument that Texas does not recognize medical licensing from other states -- maybe we should revisit that! (Actually I believe that is underway for EMT licensing...)

Tazman wrote:What exactly is Strickland's amendment?

I'm guessing "constitutional carry."

juno106 wrote:How bad a setback that they pulled Campus Carry amendment?

I think that was kind of a "Hail Mary" pass.

kg5ie wrote:We were at a "point of order", I came back and were at ease, then video shut off.

What happened?

I think they took a break.