TexasCHLforum.com

My thought is he doesn't want to put anything in writing. In a verbal interview he always has the ability to say his statement was misunderstood or he didn't properly interpret the question that was asked.

CleverNickname wrote: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.

I doubt they will modify the sign. Too many out there for them to have to reprint and have all the places that sell post. It's hard enough to get some of these businesses to post the right sign in the first place.

CleverNickname wrote: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.

Nope, see this post in this topic http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 10#p947174" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and also this one with a link in it http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 26#p947464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

46.02 would not be being violated by openly carrying a pistol, so there would be no law broken for TABC to arrest on. HOWEVER, TABC would need to either remove or not enforce the rule that says a store licensee cannot allow a unlicensed firearm on premises or lose their TABC license.

txcharvel wrote:
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?

OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.
There is at lease one section of HB195 that needs to be corrected: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/D ... &DocType=B

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.

(a)(3) is on the premises of a correctional facility

Notwithstanding the editing that still needs to happen to this bill...Legally, it might change nothing to 30.06 with regard to concealed carry, but what matters is the public perception and how they react to the law. In this scenario, we will see many more businesses posted 30.06 just to keep out the open carry crowd.

Someone please explain to me how this will not limit the places I can legally carry

Not sure what you are asking, but if you are saying that this will drive more people to put up 30.06 signs, that is an unknown. The 30.06 will not apply to open carry of a handgun, only concealed carry.

Now, as for the sections it would be better to just remove the lines that we want out like churches and hospitals. Those sections removed would clear up a lot of confusion for people who do read far enough down to see section (i) and it still would not prohibit them from posting a 30.06 if they chose to do so.

paxton25 wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote: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?
OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.

Actually, I don't believe it would. 30.06 specifically states 'concealed' handgun' so it would not apply to a handgun that was openly carried. There is no mention of any modification to section 30.06 in the bill.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Questions for OCT

Re: Questions for OCT

Re: Questions for OCT

Re: Questions for OCT

Re: Questions for OCT

Re: Questions for OCT