TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:26 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:32 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:02 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:06 amWhat about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...

Yes, there is no exception for anyone in the proposed 30.06 and 30.07. This will get all of the police organizations to oppose it very quickly. Whether we like that part or not, we need their cooperation to get anything like this passed.

Or we will theoretically be back to 1995-1996 when 30.05 purportedly applied to everyone, licensed or otherwise allowed to carry. Or was it 2001 when the exception to 30.05 for LEO and CHL was added?

The way that 30.06/07 are worded they only apply to "License Holders" meaning those carrying under the authority of an LTC. Since LEOs carry under an authority other than an LTC, then they are no subject to that at all, and never were.

Yes, but that is not the way the new 30.06/7 in Stickland's bill is worded.

And from 1995 until Sept. 1997 there WAS no 30.06, so the Democrat AG at the time wrote an opinion that 30.05 applied.

30.05 had no exception for LEO (or CHL) until 2001.

I know because I kept all my CHL 16's since 1995.

My only suggested improvement to Stickland's bill would be to completely eliminate 30.06/7. Put the specific sign requirements back into 30.05 in a new paragraph, and leave the exception and defense respectively to 30.05 for LEO and LTC. Or if LTC defense in 30.05 won't fly, then make it a class C and add the exception for emergency volunteers that is currently in 30.06/7 and get rid of them. I'm sure there is some obscure procedural/political reason why my idea won't work... so in the meantime maybe TSRA and NRA can just keep the Legislature from making anything worse!

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:02 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:06 amWhat about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...

Yes, there is no exception for anyone in the proposed 30.06 and 30.07. This will get all of the police organizations to oppose it very quickly. Whether we like that part or not, we need their cooperation to get anything like this passed.

Or we will theoretically be back to 1995-1996 when 30.05 purportedly applied to everyone, licensed or otherwise allowed to carry. Or was it 2001 when the exception to 30.05 for LEO and CHL was added?

canvasbck wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:22 am

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:08 am

hitwsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:59 am So, if Constitutional Carry is approved, then what would be the advantage to having an LTC?

No NICS check for buying guns, reciprocity with other states, Federal GFSZA exemption.

Possibly exclusion from 30.06 and 30.07, depending on how its written.

Not with Stickland's bill. But I have heard that a certain attorney who may or may not be involved on this board may have some ideas about a CC bill that removes the currently prohibited places (sporting events, etc) for license holders but keeps those prohibited places for non license holders.

That is a bill I would start making phone calls for!

This concept of eliminating the prohibited places for LTC holders and permitless carry for the rest, is a great idea. Especially if you consider the political viability. Personally I would prefer no permit requirement at all, but realistically rights are expanded a piece at a time.

hitwsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:59 am So, if Constitutional Carry is approved, then what would be the advantage to having an LTC?

No NICS check for buying guns, reciprocity with other states, Federal GFSZA exemption.

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 1:24 pm

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:57 pm That is quite the bill.... Sheesh there is a lot of distributed code.

Looks like it makes constitutional carry apply to all, and makes 30.06 and 30.07 only apply to 'unlicensed persons'.

It would likely only make it through with additional provisions for what a license holder can and cannot do- but considering when have been vetted by the state, we should be able to carry basically anywhere...

Doesn't address: GFSZ act, courtrooms or 30.06/30.07 for license holder as best as I can tell. Which makes sense, I would rather see this go through than nothing and GFSZ act is going to carry some baggage and expend some political capital.

Not saying we shouldn't get rid of GFSZ but this is a step in the right direction. Only one way to eat an elephant...

It makes 30.06 & 30.07 apply to all persons, including Security Officers and Body Guards, which are not currently subject to those sections. Pretty sizable oversight.

What about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...