TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Calendars does not meet every day, so even a tag was only for 24 - 72 hours, a single "tag" would last a week under a normal schedule. Also, you assume that each member can only tag a bill once.

Chas.

So it sounds like the only method of keeping things going is that if Dem's tag all the Repub's bills, then vice versa happens and no bills advance?

You don't kill all my bills and I won't kill all of yours..

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I found another gem in the current language of HB 1911. It now appears to apply 46.035 to everyone except peace officers, so it would make displaying a handgun at the range (i.e. in public) illegal, and carrying intoxicated in your house illegal (maybe they intended this, I told you it was coming).

Well, you really shouldn't, but I don't need the government telling me so.

Ruark wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Ruark wrote:I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

And if it has a gunbuster AND a 30.06/7 you can carry under the authority of 1911, or your badge, or your Level III PPO authorization and the 30.05 (gunbuster) won't apply because you HAVE a LTC (defense or exception to 30.05), but you're not carrying under its authority (30.06/7 doesn't apply). How about THAT?

Uh...... what?

Ruark wrote:I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

locke_n_load wrote:

Kkpsiknl wrote:I just read the substitute version, and then read the analysis of the difference between the original and the cs. My head hurts and I still don't understand.

Bill Currently (and with one final amendment):
allows unlicensed carry by individuals with no felonies who can legally buy and possess a firearm
ban of unlicensed carry is done via a gunbuster sign
carrying after being notified via sign that unlicensed carry is prohibited is a class C, given verbal notice and fails to depart is class A
open carry just requires a "holster" ("belt or shoulder holster" requirement removed)
TABC blue "unlicensed possession of a firearm" for grocery stores that sell alcohol being removed from the code.

And currently there is some debate that having an LTC would pretty much make 06/07 void to license holders because they do not have to carry under the authority of their LTCs because they meet the requirements to carry without, but 30.05 trespassing just for no handguns would not apply either, so they would technically not be breaking the law no matter what (even if all) trespassing sign is posted.

Scott can let me know if I got that last paragraph right.

G.A. Heath wrote:
There are two groups of people who can legally carry a firearm in Texas. First is Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) the Second is License To Carry a handgun holders (LTCs). LEOs can, and some do, get LTCs or have them when they become LEOs. A LEO with an LTC is technically in violation of Texas penal code 30.07 when they are in uniform carrying openly and walk past a 30.07 sign. They are also in violation of 30.06 if they are carrying a concealed backup weapon and walk past a 30.06 sign, even if they are in uniform. 30.06 and 30.07 DO NOT provide an exception for peace officers. Should a prosecutor decide to make an issue out of an officer w/ an LTC carrying past a 30.06/30.07 the officer has little recourse. This would win the prosecutor a lot of votes from the anarchist and anti-LEO crowds. Should a license holder drive past a 30.06 sign (even w/o their license in their possession) into a posted parking lot a case could be made to prosecute them I suspect. The analysis that 30.06 applies to license holders even if they are not carrying under the authority of the license appears to be valid considering only the letter of the law.

G.A. Heath wrote: As for an intoxicated LTC carrying in their home, I have no clue at this time as I am in need of sleep and I have no need to look into this so I will not (I suspect that a licensee is perfectly legal to carry in their home while intoxicated if a non-licensee is because 46.035 has a provision requiring the actor be carrying under the authority of the license). I suggest you ask an attorney who is more awake and more familiar with that aspect of the law.

G.A. Heath wrote: At a public range, hunting, ect. are activities permitted under 46.02 and do not require a license. 46.035 does not apply in these instances I suspect, as I mentioned above in this post, but once again seek the advice of an attorney if you are concerned about it. The key difference between 46.035 and 30.06/30.07 is that 30.06/30.07 has no provision requiring the actor to be carrying under the authority of the license while 46.035 requires the actor carry under the authority of their license in order for it to apply. If you are involved in an activity that does not require the license then the license holder is logically not carrying under the authority of the license and can participate.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY 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

G.A. Heath wrote: Arguments based on comparing 46.035 to 30.06/30.07 is like comparing Glocks and Oranges, You might make an argument that they are both desirable but you can not logically argue that they are both suitable for eating.

SINCE 46.035 AND 30.06/7 CONTAIN EXACTLY THE SAME LANGUAGE APPLYING GC 411 AUTHORITY THEY ARE LIKE COMPARING RUGERS AND RUGERS

locke_n_load wrote:
...
To date, I am not aware of any LEOs being charged with 30.06/30.07 when carrying on or off duty. It is a non-issue and carve outs are getting old, fast. LTC holders have a proven track record of being more law abiding than police, yet do not get the same carve outs. No more carve outs for cops, unless citizens get them too.

G.A. Heath wrote:
I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

G.A. Heath wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

G.A. Heath wrote: ...
I would suspect that if you are carrying and have your license on you then you will be presumed to be carrying under the authority of your license. If you do not have your license on you then you will be presumed to be carrying under this bill should it be passed and signed into law. I would like to wait and see what Charles has to say on this issue considering that he is an attorney and knows more than a little about gun laws.