Search found 30 matches

by ScottDLS
Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:29 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

Per the Legislature tracking website, it's signed. Tomorrow there may be a signing ceremony at the Alamo, but it will be like the the giant check that lottery hands out when you win the Powerball....it's not the one you take to the bank and deposit.
by ScottDLS
Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:33 am
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:17 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 11:17 am
ScottDLS wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:59 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:46 am So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.
You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.
Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.
I think this is precisely the point. If an LTC holder carries past 30.06 / 30.07 signage, it is OK because he is carrying under a different authority as well. Namely the authority provided by 30.05 to all non-prohibited persons to carry a gun. This is assuming that there are no compliant 30.05 signs posted.
I would make one slight change to this:

Namely the authority provided by 46.02 to all non-prohibited persons to carry a gun.
by ScottDLS
Fri May 28, 2021 5:23 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

powerboatr wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 4:25 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 6:37 pm ....

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.

thanks i bookmarked and saved a copy to my computer. made my head hurt after 30 minutes. it will take some time to digest it
I think it will be a little easier when the LTC-16 2021/22 comes out (assuming they still keep printing it). The hard part until then is to read the existing statutes and then going back to the bill and see what they change/replace.
by ScottDLS
Fri May 28, 2021 11:42 am
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

K.Mooneyham wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 11:17 am
ScottDLS wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 9:59 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:46 am So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.
You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.
Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.
How about peace officers off duty? Or retired LEO's under LEOSA...who happen to have a LTC? Or I think you saw it in your suggestion (what if you have been issued a LTC, but purposely don't have it on you?). How will the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of 30.06 have been violated (i.e. you are carrying under the authority of LTC), when you don't need that authority to carry. Is there going to be a mechanism to turn in your LTC if you don't want it anymore because it illogically prevents you from legally carrying where you could otherwise? What if you have an Arizona license and don't have it on you? How is the prosecutor wrongly charging you for 30.06 going to know that you had a license at all?
by ScottDLS
Fri May 28, 2021 9:59 am
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

K.Mooneyham wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:46 am So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.
You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.
by ScottDLS
Thu May 27, 2021 7:55 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

philip964 wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 7:24 pm ...


But is this the final thing that the Governor signs, I heard it gets blended together in conference committees and stuff?
Yes the conference committees already concluded and the resulting bill was passed by both Houses. On to the Governor. On the linked page, go to the
final enrolled bill.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ill=HB1927
by ScottDLS
Thu May 27, 2021 6:37 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

philip964 wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 6:30 pm So is there a thread where one could find out everything about this new constitutional carry? I saw a map and Texas was listed as a constitutional carry state.

Does it affect LTC or me at all?

Did it really pass?

What are the new rules?

I assume there are rules?

I didn't pay much attention, as I thought it probably would not happen, but I understand it really happened. So now I'm interested.

Were there any changes for LTC folks? Carry in bars? Signs are only for non LTC?

My assumption is that nothing really changed except a criminal will have to be convicted of his first crime before he can't carry a gun? So on his arrests, he isn't charged with a gun crime, until he is convicted for the first time?

Or were there some cool things I need to know?

I plan on keeping my LTC regardless as it is very helpful after boating accidents.
Well, it's still awaiting the Governors action, but likely that's just a formality. On this thread many of us have been trying to understand the new rules (aka law). I guess the best place to start is to read the enrolled version of the bill itself.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.
by ScottDLS
Thu May 27, 2021 3:44 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

cowhow wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 3:26 pm OK, so let's say, as Charles suggests, that 30.05 renders both 30.06 and 30.07 moot. With the vagueness of the 30.05 signage that's almost opening the door to gunbuster signs. The scary part is I can see an overzealous DA somewhere claiming that that is in fact the proper interpretation of the law. I think there are a few details still up in the air about Constitutional Carry. I don't know if the relationship between LTC and Constitutional Carry were thoroughly hashed out.
I don't think that's what he was saying, 30.05 still contains the Defense for LTC. And 30.06/7 still specify that in order to be effective you have to be carrying under the authority of your LTC. Again, the simplest example is a Peace Officer who happens to have an LTC carrying past the sign.
by ScottDLS
Thu May 27, 2021 2:15 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

Papa_Tiger wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 11:57 am
Charles L. Cotton wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 11:44 am There has been some discussion as to whether 30.06 and 30.07 signs will be effective as to an LTC, after Sept. 1, 2021. The issue seems to be focused on the fact that an LTC will not be required to carry a handgun in Texas, thus they will not be carrying “under the authority of” their LTC.

While some Penal Code provisions apply only when a person is carrying “under the authority” of their license (ex. TPC §46.035), this is not the case with TPC §§30.06 and 30.07.

Chas.
I'm not a lawyer, so please tell me where I'm wrong in my interpretation.

For there to be an offense of TPC30.06 and 30.07 there is a two pronged test:
TPC 30.06 wrote: Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
TPC 30.07 wrote: Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
If you have a license to carry AND you have it on your person are you ALWAYS carrying under the authority of the license?
:iagree:

Given the text highlighted it seems that 30.06/7 ONLY apply when you are carrying under the authority of that license, or are we to understand that Peace Officers who happen to have a LTC may not carry (legally) past 30.06/7?
by ScottDLS
Thu May 27, 2021 11:38 am
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

K.Mooneyham wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 10:45 am Here is what I KNOW about whether I can carry into a specific place or not: when I see the proper signage posted in a conspicuous manner, I stay out of those places with my legally-carried firearm. I also know not to carry onto Federal property because I work on Federal property.
Now define "proper signage" for each particular situation. :rules:
by ScottDLS
Wed May 26, 2021 4:42 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

seph wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:13 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:05 pm
Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7
License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
My understanding for 46.03 places is that there is no change for LTC holders. They have to post a 30.06/07 sign, or give verbal notice for those. A 46.03 sign means nothing for LTC, there would have to be the 30.06/07 notice given.
But if there is no 46.03 sign, but only 30.06/7, would LTC holders NOT have the same Defense that non-LTC's have?
( o) A person may provide notice that firearms and other
2 weapons are prohibited under Section 46.03 on the premises or other
3 property, as applicable, by posting a sign at each entrance to the
4 premises or other property that:
5 (1) includes language that is identical to or
6 substantially similar to the fallowing: "Pursuant to Section 46. 03,
7 Penal Code (places weapons prohibited), a person may not carry a
8 firearm or other weapon on this property";
...

m) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 46.03 that
the actor:
(1) carries a handgun on a premises or other property on
which the carrying of a weapon is prohibited under that
section;
(2) personally received from the owner of the property, or
from another person with apparent authority to act for the
owner, notice that carrying a firearm or other weapon on the
premises or other property, as applicable, was prohibited;
and
(3) promptly departed from the premises or other property.
...
(n) The defense provided by Subsection (m) does not apply
if:

(]) a sign described by Subsection (o) was posted
prominently at each entrance to the premises or other
property, as applicable; or
(2) at the time of the offense, the actor knew that carrying a
firearm or other weapon
on the premises or other property
was prohibited.
(o) A person may provide notice that firearms and other
weapons are prohibited under Section 46.03 on the premises
or other property, as applicable, by posting a sign at each
entrance to the premises or other property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially
similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 46.03, Penal
Code (places weapons prohibited), a person may not carry a
firearm or other weapon on this property";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in
both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.
by ScottDLS
Wed May 26, 2021 4:05 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7
License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
by ScottDLS
Wed May 26, 2021 3:28 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:21 pm
Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.

Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I was criticized by an "gun expert" for posting the above comments on another gun forum. He said the new law states that .06 signs will also apply to non-LTC carriers, which is utterly false, and suggested I read the law so I won't appear "uneducated." If gun enthusiasts are that confused, a LOT of people out there, especially non-shooter lay peoplek and business owners, won't be able to make sense of all this.
Hospitals are off limits to unlicensed carry per 46.03, so don't carry there even if you only see a 30.06/7 sign. Just about every other public location will require 30.05/6 at the least to prohibit all carry so long as the location isn't afraid of issuing personal warnings to those who choose to open carry.
This is a good point, however they are supposed to post a 46.03 sign to prevent unlicensed carry AND 30.06/7. However, unlike 30.05, the Defense to prosecution under 46.03 is weaker. It says you have to receive notice under 46.03 OR if you "knew" that carry was prohibited there you don't have the defense. I could see a reasonable argument that LTC should "know" that carry is prohibited there. On the other hand if you don't carry your LTC with you, you can clerly argue you were not carrying under authority of it. My main problem with all this is that the penalty is higher than a class C.
by ScottDLS
Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.

Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I was criticized by an "gun expert" for posting the above comments on another gun forum. He said the new law states that .06 signs will also apply to non-LTC carriers, which is utterly false, and suggested I read the law so I won't appear "uneducated." If gun enthusiasts are that confused, a LOT of people out there, especially non-shooter lay peoplek and business owners, won't be able to make sense of all this.
You are correct and the "gun expert" is wrong. I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.
Good. I'm glad it's going to be a mess. Much less likely that locations and businesses will be able to comply.
by ScottDLS
Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm
Forum: General Legislative Discussions
Topic: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Replies: 387
Views: 119660

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

cowhow wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 1:17 pm Man, there seems to be a truck load of confusion as to exactly how Constitutional Carry is going to impact CHL/LTC going forward. Is this going to be like open carry was a few years ago? After the new wore off it was no longer an issue. I rarely see someone openly carrying anymore.

Does the LTC trump Constitutional Carry or the other way around? If we are given a verbal notice than signage doesn't matter at the point. But I do think the 30.05 verbage could have been more specific. Maybe it would be appropriate to add the verbage like the signs on alcohol consumption have, "the unlicensed possession/carrying of a firearm". I can see businesses putting up a 30.05 thinking that covers all the bases when it actually doesn't. I think the wording is too vague. I would like to know how LTC holders profit from Constitutional Carry. Does it expand in any way where we can carry?
My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
I can see businesses putting up a 30.05 thinking that covers all the bases when it actually doesn't.
Good. I want businesses to think all their bases are covered with one sign. Another benefit to keeping one's LTC.

Return to “HB 1927 on the Senate floor now”