TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:The Harris County DA also addressed the issue of "on or about your person" while carrying in a vehicle by a license holder. It is the opinion of the Harris County DA's office as long as the handgun remains in a shoulder or belt holster, it does not have to be on the person's body to be considered openly carried and legal. About 59 minutes into the video.

I can see how some people would come to this conclusion, because the statute does not state that the shoulder or belt holster needs to be worn by the LTC. I could also see an appellate court issuing an opinion that the reference to holsters implies that they must be worn on the person. It would go either way, but look at the exact language used:

Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a) wrote:It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a shoulder or belt holster by the license holder.

The testimony referred to the typical language "on or about the person" found throughout the Penal Code, including §46.02. The specific language at issue does not use the phrase "on or about the person; it specifically states "carried.

Obviously, the Harris County DA's office will not accept charges for violation of TPC §46.035(a) if the handgun is in a holster in your vehicle. Other district attorneys may feel differently. People need to understand the risk when they choose to lay a holster on the seat of their car or truck, or use a console-mounted holster, etc.

Chas.

What you folks are saying about the impact of amending Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to both open and concealed carry is correct. However, don't read too much into Sen. Birdwell's off-the-cuff comment. I believe it was simply a mistake. I have not spoken to him about this comment, but I have spoken to him many times, and this is merely my opinion.

The Senate version of the NRA/TSRA open-carry bill was SB17 carried by Sen. Estes. The House version of the NRA/TSRA open-carry bill was HB910 by Chairman Phillips. Every version of both HB910 and SB17, from the as-filed versions to the engrossed versions, did amend Tex. Penal Code §30.06(a)(1) to add the word "concealed" to prevent any argument that Section 30.06 applied to both open and concealed carry. (HB910, Section 41, Pg. 29 and SB17, Section 42, Pg. 30.)

Sen. Birdwell was our campus-carry champion and his bill was SB11. He spent countless hours betting this Bill passed. It was clearly his primary focus for the 2015 Legislative Session and fought like a tiger to get it passed. He was at the interim study hearing for SB11 and campus-carry. Again, I haven't talked to him about the hearing, but I have known him for a long while and anyone who has seen him testify on our gun bills knows he is an ardent supporter of gun rights. Gun owners have no better friend in Austin than Sen. Birdwell. I am certain he simply make a mistake caused by confusion between these two high-profile flagship bills.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:At about 52:30, Sen Birdwell is talking about a possible change to 30.06 next session. Apparently there was some discussion/intention last session about using 30.06 to prevent BOTH CC and OC, but that intention didn't get written into the law. Buirdwell is discussing an intention to address that in 2017.

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.06 would prohibit OC only.

I think you have a typo in there somewhere

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I hope this was not the intent of the legislature.

It most certainly was not!
Chas.