TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I was also notably impressed with the depth of knowledge the Harris County DA possessed on TX LTC law and associated issues. Not only about the details of the laws, but on the gray areas as well. Also, I came away with the impression that he was only concerned with the proper application of the laws, and was not trying to interpret or bend the law to fit any particular personal opinion...

That had to be someone in another position. The Harris County DA is a 'she' -- Devon Anderson

Hmmm... I'll go back and check...

You are correct... Thanks for the catch!

The individual testifying was Justin Wood, Chief Prosecutor from the Major Offenders Division, Harris County DA's office.
Complements to him.

I was also notably impressed with the depth of knowledge the Harris County DA possessed on TX LTC law and associated issues. Not only about the details of the laws, but on the gray areas as well. Also, I came away with the impression that he was only concerned with the proper application of the laws, and was not trying to interpret or bend the law to fit any particular personal opinion...

dhoobler wrote:The point of my post was that if the law was changed so that one sign banned both and a business owner posted that sign instead of posting two signs,we could not talk him/her into removing the 30.06 sign and only banning open carry. If they already have the new 30.06 sign that bans both OC and CC, it is unlikely that we will get them to buy a 30.07 sign to replace the 30.06 sign.

And I disagree. I believe, as a business owner myself, that if a business owner is given the opportunity to understand that they've made an error and posted a sign that excludes all carry and not just open carry as they originally intended, I believe they would be quick to fix it. Unless their intention was to prevent all carry, and absorb the (debated elsewhere) business impact that decision would have. In which case we're talking about a different problem from 30.06/07 rules.

Coming from Sen Birdwell, clearly one of the strongest pro-2A voices in the chamber, his 30.06 comment yesterday was notable.

Thanks for the clarification Charles.

dhoobler wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote: 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 also means that we cannot get the 30.06 sign removed when the business owner intended to only prohibit open carry, but was misinformed about the law.

Why?

Me: If you only want to stop open carry in your establishment, you need to post the 30.07 sign. 30.06 will prevent me from entering, even if my gun is concealed.

Owner: Thanks... I didn't understand the difference in the two signs. I'll make the switch ASAP.

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.

Thanks for the correction Jerry.
Posting from a mobile phone is fraught with peril and typos.

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.