Questions for OCT

[Keith B]

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?


OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.

There is at lease one section of HB195 that needs to be corrected: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Search/D ... &DocType=B

Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

(a)(3) is on the premises of a correctional facility

Notwithstanding the editing that still needs to happen to this bill...Legally, it might change nothing to 30.06 with regard to concealed carry, but what matters is the public perception and how they react to the law. In this scenario, we will see many more businesses posted 30.06 just to keep out the open carry crowd.

Someone please explain to me how this will not limit the places I can legally carry

Not sure what you are asking, but if you are saying that this will drive more people to put up 30.06 signs, that is an unknown. The 30.06 will not apply to open carry of a handgun, only concealed carry.

Now, as for the sections it would be better to just remove the lines that we want out like churches and hospitals. Those sections removed would clear up a lot of confusion for people who do read far enough down to see section (i) and it still would not prohibit them from posting a 30.06 if they chose to do so.

[mojo84]

I wish they would strike the parts of the law they want to remove rather than adding additional language to offset or nullify previous language.

[CleverNickname]

It appears to me that since HB195 doesn't modify PC 30.06, then 30.06 would still only apply to licensees. This means if HB195 passed, someone who is not a licensee but otherwise legally carrying would not be affected by 30.06 at all. However HB195 also doesn't modify TABC 11.041, so it also appears that non-licensees would be unable to legally carry in any location with a TABC license, whereas licensees would continue to only be limited from carrying at 51% locations.

Also in case nobody noticed, it implicitly allows 18-20 year olds to carry. They just wouldn't be able to get a license, as before.

[Keith B]

However HB195 also doesn't modify TABC 11.041, so it also appears that non-licensees would be unable to legally carry in any location with a TABC license, whereas licensees would continue to only be limited from carrying at 51% locations.

Nope, see this post in this topic http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 10#p947174" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and also this one with a link in it http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 26#p947464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

46.02 would not be being violated by openly carrying a pistol, so there would be no law broken for TABC to arrest on. HOWEVER, TABC would need to either remove or not enforce the rule that says a store licensee cannot allow a unlicensed firearm on premises or lose their TABC license.

[paxton25]

However HB195 also doesn't modify TABC 11.041, so it also appears that non-licensees would be unable to legally carry in any location with a TABC license, whereas licensees would continue to only be limited from carrying at 51% locations.

Nope, see this post in this topic http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 10#p947174" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and also this one with a link in it http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 26#p947464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

46.02 would not be being violated by openly carrying a pistol, so there would be no law broken for TABC to arrest on. HOWEVER, TABC would need to either remove or not enforce the rule that says a store licensee cannot allow a unlicensed firearm on premises or lose their TABC license.

That's the way I see it too, the action isn't against the carryer but it falls on the TABC licensee.

[CleverNickname]

Ok, looks like you're right. I'd still prefer HB195 (or any other yet-to-be filed bill removing licensure requirements) modify TABC code to remove the sign requirement too, so there's no confusion.

[Keith B]

Ok, looks like you're right. I'd still prefer HB195 (or any other yet-to-be filed bill removing licensure requirements) modify TABC code to remove the sign requirement too, so there's no confusion.

I doubt they will modify the sign. Too many out there for them to have to reprint and have all the places that sell post. It's hard enough to get some of these businesses to post the right sign in the first place.

[The Annoyed Man]

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?

OK that was how I understood it too, that's why I was confused when you started talking about including OC in 30.06 when I was talking about HB195. I didn't figure Charles would be supporting the bill if it did that. While I think the situation you described would be relatively small, I must admit it is an aspect I haven't considered before that is a possible negative consequence that should be considered and opposed. That is the kind of information I was looking for. So far I haven't seen anything about the bill that would suggest to me that I shouldn't push for HB195 to pass.

Actually, I don't believe it would. 30.06 specifically states 'concealed' handgun' so it would not apply to a handgun that was openly carried. There is no mention of any modification to section 30.06 in the bill.

Keith, thanks. That is the part that is poorly written then in HB195. You can see the language from the proposed changes to 46.035 which I included above. It specifically states that the restrictions in the subsections do not apply if the actor has not been given notice under 30.06. But, it also is changed to remove references to concealed handguns. THAT means that any lawfully carried handguns are subject to 30.06........ and that creates a conflict that will HAVE to be resolved in some way or other, as soon as people who want to ban OC in their businesses discover that 30.06 references only concealed handguns, and that they have no current recourse before the law.

Good law should anticipate the obvious—and in this case, the conflict is even obvious to me, an untrained observer of the law—that (A) the law points to 30.06, and (B) that 30.06 does not address OC.......and I am PRO Open Carry. It is only going to be a matter of time, and not much time at that, before people who are anti-carry of any kind get their teeth into this thing.

What then? Well, the demographics of the state are changing, and those changes are not necessarily favorable to gun rights because of the influx of transplants from states where guns are tightly restricted. As the pro-gun roots of Texas get watered down by these arrivals, it gets to be fairly easy at some point to force a change to 30.06 instead of creating a 30.07. Our hope and recourse is that antigun and fence-sitting transplants will come to appreciate their new freedoms here in Texas, and alter their views correspondingly.... but that is NOT something I want to count on.

I would be a LOT more comfortable with HB195 if, instead of avoiding the issue, it settled it by mandating a creation of 30.07.

[CleverNickname]

Not modify the TABC sign, just remove the requirement to post it. The old signs would come down naturally, over time. And couldn't the TABC just tell licensees the sign is no longer required when the license is renewed?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can't go into too much detail now, but Keith is correct; TPC §30.06 expressly applies only to CHLs. It's poorly written and if HB195 gets any traction, then something tells me there will either be a committee substitute, or a floor amendment dealing with issue.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

OCT/CJ Grisham. Please give us an answer to the 3 critical questions in the first post on this thread. Why are you refusing to answer?

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

OCT/CJ Grisham. Please give us an answer to the 3 critical questions in the first post on this thread. Why are you refusing to answer?

Chas.

He is refusing to answer because he accomplished his mission: to raise funds - viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75122" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

[canvasbck]

OCT/CJ Grisham. Please give us an answer to the 3 critical questions in the first post on this thread. Why are you refusing to answer?

Chas.

Has he even logged onto the site in the last few days?

[Charles L. Cotton]

OCT/CJ Grisham. Please give us an answer to the 3 critical questions in the first post on this thread. Why are you refusing to answer?

Chas.

Has he even logged onto the site in the last few days?

No, but he can read the posts without logging in. I also posted a link on thread he posted on so he'd get an email.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Charles, I don't think he has the personal integrity to reply.