HB 2756 Open Carry bill reported favorably

[Keith B]

HB-2756 is a good bill and I hope it passes. Don't count it out just yet! There is still time. I plan to be on the phone tomorrow and will also sent emails. I will at least do my part! Hope everyone else does so too!

As written, it is a terrible bill and I hope it doesn't pass unless there are some changes to the wording. See my post above as it has details on the problems.

[JKTex]

HB-2756 is a good bill and I hope it passes. Don't count it out just yet! There is still time. I plan to be on the phone tomorrow and will also sent emails. I will at least do my part! Hope everyone else does so too!

I have a hard time understanding how someone can think it's a good bill. Unless you're not a CHL holder and not thinking about the ramifications if it did pass as is. But if you're not a CHL holder, it doesn't effect you at all, so I'm scratching; it doesn't make sense.

[PATHFINDER]

I do appreciate many of the concerns about HB 2756. I have some concerns of my own. I haven't spoken with anyone who wouldn't prefer some major changes. I am not in a position to address the pre-file history of HB 2756. I was not associated with Lone Star Citizen's Defense League that early on in the effort.

Charles - the majority of pro-right to carry supporters in Texas are troubled by the unnecessary, distracting, and apparently ever escalating personalization of this debate. Reasonable people can disagree on strategies, and timing in remedying constitutional defects in Code sections, but our efforts need to be focused on discussion, research, and education. The integrity of one's professional life merits respect. As an active member of LSCDL, I feel that you are entitled to an apology, particularly if you, or any of your professional associates were in fact subjected to any annoyance. Personal offense is always ill-conceived, never productive, and invariably plays out as a spit directed into a head-wind.

The Texas Constitution always has the FIRST & FINAL word on legislation. Acts of the Legislature do not "define" the Texas Constitution. What I call "Neo-Reconstructionism" is rooted in the philosphy that enacted laws can pretend to "amend" the Constitution through the agregate codification of elitist preferences into the front-lines of public policy. This trend has been going on for 135 years in Texas, and reflects a confluence of varied self-interests attempting to ram through legislation during an extremely brief time window. The adoption of the Texas Constitution in 1876 was more than a bench-mark in the history books. It is the very foundation of Texas law.

The Texas Constitution reserves the right to carry (even handguns) openly in lawful defense to every citizen. Acts of the Legislature , decisions by Texas courts, and law enforcement procedures must respect, and reflect that fact. HB 2756 is Representative Lavender's bill. We should know by tomorrow whether the House will have a chance to even consider the measure. If the bill is placed on the House calender, further discussion will be warranted. Based upon my discussions with Representative Lavender's office, the 30.06 concerns frequently expressed on this forum can be addressed - if and when the bill moves forward.

[G.A. Heath]

I do appreciate many of the concerns about HB 2756. I have some concerns of my own. I haven't spoken with anyone who wouldn't prefer some major changes. I am not in a position to address the pre-file history of HB 2756. I was not associated with Lone Star Citizen's Defense League that early on in the effort.

Charles - the majority of pro-right to carry supporters in Texas are troubled by the unnecessary, distracting, and apparently ever escalating personalization of this debate. Reasonable people can disagree on strategies, and timing in remedying constitutional defects in Code sections, but our efforts need to be focused on discussion, research, and education. The integrity of one's professional life merits respect. As an active member of LSCDL, I feel that you are entitled to an apology, particularly if you, or any of your professional associates were in fact subjected to any annoyance. Personal offense is always ill-conceived, never productive, and invariably plays out as a spit directed into a head-wind.

The Texas Constitution always has the FIRST & FINAL word on legislation. Acts of the Legislature do not "define" the Texas Constitution. What I call "Neo-Reconstructionism" is rooted in the philosphy that enacted laws can pretend to "amend" the Constitution through the agregate codification of elitist preferences into the front-lines of public policy. This trend has been going on for 135 years in Texas, and reflects a confluence of varied self-interests attempting to ram through legislation during an extremely brief time window. The adoption of the Texas Constitution in 1876 was more than a bench-mark in the history books. It is the very foundation of Texas law.

The Texas Constitution reserves the right to carry (even handguns) openly in lawful defense to every citizen. Acts of the Legislature , decisions by Texas courts, and law enforcement procedures must respect, and reflect that fact. HB 2756 is Representative Lavender's bill. We should know by tomorrow whether the House will have a chance to even consider the measure. If the bill is placed on the House calender, further discussion will be warranted. Based upon my discussions with Representative Lavender's office, the 30.06 concerns frequently expressed on this forum can be addressed - if and when the bill moves forward.

Why was this bill even presented in it's current form if you haven't spoken with anyone who wouldn't prefer some major changes? I understand that you know nothing about the prefile history of the bill, due to you not being involved then, but I would think that with your position you can learn about it and educate those of us who are interested.

Shane McCrary (President of LSCDL) is one of the most active people in the "personalization of this debate" and has called for people to commit criminal acts. I have a screen shot where he posted his request for people to harass Mr. Cotton at his work place which is, as Mr. Cotton pointed out, a violation of State and Federal Law. Now with this blight on their record, while Mr McCrary remains in his position, can LSCDL legitimately act in the interest of law abiding citizens?

Can you please specify where in the Texas Constitution it provides for open carry and how that interacts with the authority of the state legislature to regulate the wearing of arms?

[JKTex]

I'm trying to get past and out of the all the rhetoric and mess and focus on the bill since it's currently active. I may be missing something and if I am, please correct me. To me, right now, forget the LSCDL. The bill is Rep. Lavender's and he and all other Representatives serves their constituency which is the State of Texas, us.

If it looks like there is any chance at all that it may progress, we need to make sure they know how "we" feel and ask for the changes to be made, or withdraw it. There's no sense in letting it cause any damage, as slight as it may be if it runs out of time. After all, I'm sure most of us have watched our local news and seen it already being discussed. People are hearing about it and when/if it gains a higher profile, it do not need to cause any damage.

[johnferg69]

I'm trying to get past and out of the all the rhetoric and mess and focus on the bill since it's currently active. I may be missing something and if I am, please correct me. To me, right now, forget the LSCDL. The bill is Rep. Lavender's and he and all other Representatives serves their constituency which is the State of Texas, us.

If it looks like there is any chance at all that it may progress, we need to make sure they know how "we" feel and ask for the changes to be made, or withdraw it. There's no sense in letting it cause any damage, as slight as it may be if it runs out of time. After all, I'm sure most of us have watched our local news and seen it already being discussed. People are hearing about it and when/if it gains a higher profile, it do not need to cause any damage.

I whole-heartedly agree with you. The bill is currently active and with a few changes it could be an acceptable bill. Change wording to "open or conceal carry", eliminate section 40, leave the 30.06 sign alone and let an official "gun buster" sign regulate open carry is my take. I know some feel 2 signs would be burdensome to businesses. I don't see where its any more burdensome than others signs businesses are required to display by law. If all the energy spent on here and other forums was to get it changed and passed instead of arguing, finger-pointing and demonizing we'd have it made.

[sherlock7]

I could not agree more!When I posted that it was a good bill' I should have said it would be a good bill with a few changes. But I do want some type of open carry bill to advance this week if at all possible!

[mreavis]

I also would not be surprised if 30.06 signs increased in areas and I would not like that either. However, at this time, we do not have a given right to carry into every business. That is why they made the 30.06 sign. If you want to fight against that sign or restriction that is of arguable merit. Open carry itself though is not truly about that. Choosing to not have open carry (a separate but important right) simply because it will further educate people on gun laws (30.06 signs) is a step in the over-all wrong direction. Although you or I may not agree with 30.06 signs, if we want to do this the real way, we will fight the sign and restrictions itself. Not try to preserve the lack of knowledge about the laws. Who knows, maybe open carry would even show people guns are not so scary in public in the hands of licensed holders.

I acknowledge the gorilla warfare tactic of hiding the right to post 30.06 signs from business owners. And I agree this will effect that. I just don't think that should be our biggest focus.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I also would not be surprised if 30.06 signs increased in areas and I would not like that either. However, at this time, we do not have a given right to carry into every business. That is why they made the 30.06 sign. If you want to fight against that sign or restriction that is of arguable merit. Open carry itself though is not truly about that. Choosing to not have open carry (a separate but important right) simply because it will further educate people on gun laws (30.06 signs) is a step in the over-all wrong direction. Although you or I may not agree with 30.06 signs, if we want to do this the real way, we will fight the sign and restrictions itself. Not try to preserve the lack of knowledge about the laws. Who knows, maybe open carry would even show people guns are not so scary in public in the hands of licensed holders.

I acknowledge the gorilla warfare tactic of hiding the right to post 30.06 signs from business owners. And I agree this will effect that. I just don't think that should be our biggest focus.

TPC §30.06 is not unfair to CHLs or an imposition on us; it literally saved us from being shut out of a huge percentage of businesses. If TPC §30.06 were repealed, CHLs could be barred simply by posting a generic "no guns" sign or decal. The last thing we want to to do away with §30.06. The next to the last thing we want is to have §30.06 amended to apply to both open and concealed carry.

Chas.

[clarionite]

I also would not be surprised if 30.06 signs increased in areas and I would not like that either. However, at this time, we do not have a given right to carry into every business. That is why they made the 30.06 sign. If you want to fight against that sign or restriction that is of arguable merit. Open carry itself though is not truly about that. Choosing to not have open carry (a separate but important right) simply because it will further educate people on gun laws (30.06 signs) is a step in the over-all wrong direction. Although you or I may not agree with 30.06 signs, if we want to do this the real way, we will fight the sign and restrictions itself. Not try to preserve the lack of knowledge about the laws. Who knows, maybe open carry would even show people guns are not so scary in public in the hands of licensed holders.

I acknowledge the gorilla warfare tactic of hiding the right to post 30.06 signs from business owners. And I agree this will effect that. I just don't think that should be our biggest focus.

TPC §30.06 is not unfair to CHLs or an imposition on us; it literally saved us from being shut out of a huge percentage of businesses. If TPC §30.06 were repealed, CHLs could be barred simply by posting a generic "no guns" sign or decal. The last thing we want to to do away with §30.06. The next to the last thing we want is to have §30.06 amended to apply to both open and concealed carry.

Chas.

I agree completely. I feel comfortable with §30.06 because it's a known. I know that if I see that sign I can't carry there. The last thing I want is ambiguity in what constitutes notice that I can't carry. And I also agree that there might be quite a lot of businesses that wouldn't be comfortable with OC but have no problem with Concealed at the moment.

I support OC in principle, because I believe it's our right to do so. I don't think I'd do it other than on hunting and fishing trips, or working in my back yard. I like the idea though that if there is an OC law I have to be less concerned with accidentally revealing my carry weapon.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Jim, I drafted a rather lengthy response, but posting it will not accomplish anything constructive. I appreciate the fact that you were not with LSCDL when what became HB2756 was drafted by Shane McCrary. However, you are Legislative Director of LSCDL and I feel certain you can ask Shane how HB2756 came to be. Allowing another LSCDL member to falsely imply that NRA and/or TSRA rewrote the bill is counterproductive and unfair to the only two organizations in Texas that pass pro-gun legislation and block anti-gun legislation.

You are also in a position to tell everyone if LSCDL supports amending TPC §30.06 so that it will apply to both open and concealed carry. This is obviously a major issue for most CHLs and I think Texas gun owners have a right to know LSCDL's position on this issue. Do you?

As for bringing an end to personal animosity, you need to talk to Lone Star Civil Defense League President Shane McCrary and post something on OpenCarry.org. MR REDNECK's track record on TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk and on OpenCarry.org clearly shows he is a driving force behind the personal attacks and lies. The strongest open-carry supporters, the bomb-throwers if you will, ridicule people who have legitimate concerns about a great increase in 30.06 signs. "Elitists," "drink the koolaid," and other demeaning comments are common place on OpenCarry.org and among LSCDL members who post here on TexasCHLforum. Giving a call to peace here on TexasCHLforum is a bit misplaced since you are talking to the victims of personal attacks, not the perpetrators.

Finally, please answer the question I asked about your representation that "Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?" I can't let this go as I don't want TexasCHLforum Members or guests to be misled about the benefits of membership in LSCDL. Some people might even make decisions as to whether they should purchase self-defense insurance or participate in a pre-paid legal program based upon your representation.

Chas.

I do appreciate many of the concerns about HB 2756. I have some concerns of my own. I haven't spoken with anyone who wouldn't prefer some major changes. I am not in a position to address the pre-file history of HB 2756. I was not associated with Lone Star Citizen's Defense League that early on in the effort.

Charles - the majority of pro-right to carry supporters in Texas are troubled by the unnecessary, distracting, and apparently ever escalating personalization of this debate. Reasonable people can disagree on strategies, and timing in remedying constitutional defects in Code sections, but our efforts need to be focused on discussion, research, and education. The integrity of one's professional life merits respect. As an active member of LSCDL, I feel that you are entitled to an apology, particularly if you, or any of your professional associates were in fact subjected to any annoyance. Personal offense is always ill-conceived, never productive, and invariably plays out as a spit directed into a head-wind.

The Texas Constitution always has the FIRST & FINAL word on legislation. Acts of the Legislature do not "define" the Texas Constitution. What I call "Neo-Reconstructionism" is rooted in the philosphy that enacted laws can pretend to "amend" the Constitution through the agregate codification of elitist preferences into the front-lines of public policy. This trend has been going on for 135 years in Texas, and reflects a confluence of varied self-interests attempting to ram through legislation during an extremely brief time window. The adoption of the Texas Constitution in 1876 was more than a bench-mark in the history books. It is the very foundation of Texas law.

The Texas Constitution reserves the right to carry (even handguns) openly in lawful defense to every citizen. Acts of the Legislature , decisions by Texas courts, and law enforcement procedures must respect, and reflect that fact. HB 2756 is Representative Lavender's bill. We should know by tomorrow whether the House will have a chance to even consider the measure. If the bill is placed on the House calender, further discussion will be warranted. Based upon my discussions with Representative Lavender's office, the 30.06 concerns frequently expressed on this forum can be addressed - if and when the bill moves forward.

[johnferg69]

I support OC in principle, because I believe it's our right to do so. I like the idea though that if there is an OC law I have to be less concerned with accidentally revealing my carry weapon.

LOL At 6'4 and 260 I'd love to wear a OWB holster without having to have a shirt thats 3XL2T just to make sure I hid it. My pants don't ride as high as they used too with my "Dunlap"

[Ravendove]

I figure it's about time I posted on here so here's my perspective on this. I moved here from Tennessee nearly a year ago and I'm still kind of acclimating to the differences in carry laws and legislation and the overall environment in which we operate. One of the huge differences I've noticed is that TN allows open carry and has since the enactment of their Handgun Carry Permit law. It made sense to me because it made available a lot of options as far as how to carry to allow best access. It wasn't strictly carry open or carry concealed, it also allowed a middle ground. The other thing is that it's hot in TN. It's HOTTER here. I like the option to open carry, and in fact it changed someone's mind who had just a half second prior to noticing my firearm had made the decision to mug me. Currently I carry a micro-desert eagle .380 in my pocket. That's pretty tough to draw in a hurry and pretty much impossible when in the car.

Now, forgive me, but there was a LOT of reading to get from the beginning of this thread to the end and I may have skipped over some of the in-fighting because it was getting repetitive, so it's possible that I missed some of the reasons you guys don't like the current wording of this bill. The main one that I've seen is the threat of 30.06 postings drastically increasing. There was a similar concern in TN when we were fighting for restaurant carry... the right of permit holders to carry in restaurants where alcohol is served so long as they don't drink. There were a lot of claims from restaurant owners that they would post their properties. In truth, the law passed and only a few signs went up. Shortly thereafter (Just a week or two) many, if not most, of those signs came back down. So, I agree that this is a valid concern, but I think that it isn't as serious as some of you guys think. Also, yeah every once and a while I would OC, every once in a while I'd see someone else OC, but neither case happened very often at all. Just because we can carry openly doesn't mean everyone or even half of the CHL population is going to start doing it on a regular basis. When these bills are in the news, the perception is always higher than after it's passed.

Personally, I'd like to see a requirement for a sign that deals specifically with OC. It just seems dangerous to me to let businesses post whatever sign they feel like wherever they feel like it to prohibit open carry, the same way it was dangerous to let them post whatever wherever for concealed. And honestly, I'd rather there be one sign to cover both than no sign at all for OC. I know you're worried the signs would go up prohibiting both just because of the perception of one but I feel pretty comfortable that it wouldn't happen that way. At least it wouldn't happen at more than a handful of places... and even some of those probably wouldn't last. This is partly speculation on my part but also very largely actual experience.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.

Warmest regards to all of you,
Sean

[clarionite]

I support OC in principle, because I believe it's our right to do so. I like the idea though that if there is an OC law I have to be less concerned with accidentally revealing my carry weapon.

LOL At 6'4 and 260 I'd love to wear a OWB holster without having to have a shirt thats 3XL2T just to make sure I hid it. My pants don't ride as high as they used too with my "Dunlap"

I've got you beat by a few inches and quite a few pounds...
I'm 6'7" and my weight doesn't start with a 2 <G>

[Charles L. Cotton]

I figure it's about time I posted on here so here's my perspective on this. I moved here from Tennessee nearly a year ago and I'm still kind of acclimating to the differences in carry laws and legislation and the overall environment in which we operate. One of the huge differences I've noticed is that TN allows open carry and has since the enactment of their Handgun Carry Permit law. It made sense to me because it made available a lot of options as far as how to carry to allow best access. It wasn't strictly carry open or carry concealed, it also allowed a middle ground. The other thing is that it's hot in TN. It's HOTTER here. I like the option to open carry, and in fact it changed someone's mind who had just a half second prior to noticing my firearm had made the decision to mug me. Currently I carry a micro-desert eagle .380 in my pocket. That's pretty tough to draw in a hurry and pretty much impossible when in the car.

Now, forgive me, but there was a LOT of reading to get from the beginning of this thread to the end and I may have skipped over some of the in-fighting because it was getting repetitive, so it's possible that I missed some of the reasons you guys don't like the current wording of this bill. The main one that I've seen is the threat of 30.06 postings drastically increasing. There was a similar concern in TN when we were fighting for restaurant carry... the right of permit holders to carry in restaurants where alcohol is served so long as they don't drink. There were a lot of claims from restaurant owners that they would post their properties. In truth, the law passed and only a few signs went up. Shortly thereafter (Just a week or two) many, if not most, of those signs came back down. So, I agree that this is a valid concern, but I think that it isn't as serious as some of you guys think. Also, yeah every once and a while I would OC, every once in a while I'd see someone else OC, but neither case happened very often at all. Just because we can carry openly doesn't mean everyone or even half of the CHL population is going to start doing it on a regular basis. When these bills are in the news, the perception is always higher than after it's passed.

Personally, I'd like to see a requirement for a sign that deals specifically with OC. It just seems dangerous to me to let businesses post whatever sign they feel like wherever they feel like it to prohibit open carry, the same way it was dangerous to let them post whatever wherever for concealed. And honestly, I'd rather there be one sign to cover both than no sign at all for OC. I know you're worried the signs would go up prohibiting both just because of the perception of one but I feel pretty comfortable that it wouldn't happen that way. At least it wouldn't happen at more than a handful of places... and even some of those probably wouldn't last. This is partly speculation on my part but also very largely actual experience.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.
Warmest regards to all of you,
Sean

Welcome to TexasCHLforum Sean. What part of Texas do you call home?


As for the likelihood of seeing an epidemic of 30.06 signs, we don't have to look to Tennessee for insight as to what might happen, especially since your State's experience was much better than what we saw in Texas from 1995 to 1997. The generic "no guns" signs and small decals were popping up on businesses like crabgrass and contrary to what some folks claim, they never came down. That's why it was necessary to pass HB2909 in 1997 and create the "big ugly sign" requirement to bar entry by armed CHLs. When HB2909 went into effect on Sept. 1, 1997, we did see a few 30.06 signs but not many. As we planned, the "big ugly sign" was too big and too ugly for most businesses to post. I would like to think that we responsible CHL's educated the business community in a mere 21 months and they came to trust us. Unfortunately, it was the "big ugly sign" not our trustworthiness that prevented an epidemic of 30.06 signs.

A one-size-fits-all sign will be a deal breaker with the folks who can get open-carry passed; i.e. the NRA and TSRA. We simply cannot put 461,000 CHLs at risk. More importantly, there is absolutely no reason do so so. Having TPC §30.06 apply only to CHLs and letting the simple, small "ghost buster" decals apply to open-carry gives everyone an option. It allows businesses to prohibit open-carry but allow concealed-carry. It gives people carrying openly the option to cover their gun and enter the building when they encounter a generic "no guns" sign/decal.

I agree with you and most open-carry supporters that relatively few people will carry openly. However, all it will take for a business owner to post the appropriate sign is to have one person walking through their store with a handgun showing and his customers start complaining. Less than 3% (CHL's) of the population isn't going to negatively impact a store's business, but 97% (non-CHLs) can.

I acknowledge that we may not see a negative backlash against open-carry if/when it passes, but the risk is there, it's real, and I believe it is substantial. In spite of what they claim, I think open-carry supporters also believe there will be a negative backlash against open-carry, otherwise they would not want to see TPC §30.06 amended to cover open and concealed carry. As I've posted many times, this risk can be greatly diminished by educating the public, but that requires diplomacy and statesmanlike conduct. The Texas Firearms Coalition has just such a plan ready to launch when this legislative session is over. Of one thing I am absolutely certain, open-carry supporters need to accept that amending TPC §30.06 to cover open and concealed carry is not acceptable and it's not negotiable. Neither the NRA nor TSRA will accept a provision that puts 461,000+ CHLs at risk. We would kill our own bill before letting that happen.

Again, welcome to Texas and to TexasCHLforum.

Chas.