SB17 OC Bill On Intent Calendar for 3-16-2015.

[CoffeeNut]

Does the retention training amendment mean I won't be able to OC until after I renew my CHL?

[Glockster]

Does the retention training amendment mean I won't be able to OC until after I renew my CHL?

That amendment was tabled so that won't be a requirement.

[TexasCajun]

Does the retention training amendment mean I won't be able to OC until after I renew my CHL?

That amendment was tabled so that won't be a requirement.

No, that amendment will be added to the bill. But it won't apply to existing chl since we have no renewal class. It will affect new chl taking the class and instructors - which is why the law won't take effect until Jan.

[Glockster]

Does the retention training amendment mean I won't be able to OC until after I renew my CHL?

That amendment was tabled so that won't be a requirement.

No, that amendment will be added to the bill. But it won't apply to existing chl since we have no renewal class. It will affect new chl taking the class and instructors - which is why the law won't take effect until Jan.

My bad - I misread and thought the above was asking about Amendments 5 & 6 for the holster so thought I was answering that.

[juno106]

I am more concerned with Sen Huffman's amendment which purports to synch SB17 with SB11, in the event both are enacted.

I think Sen. West(?) offered an amendment to Sen Huffman's amendment. Something about adding "knowingly" to "intentionally", or vice-versa.

Charlie indicated that this would make it easier to prosecute.

I know last session we did away with "printing".

But, given the extreme anti-gun atmosphere that pervades most college & universities (Adm. McRaven), I am concerned about the threshold and penalties for either printing (in spite of last session's gains), or brief accidental display (suit jacket opens up while using a shoulder holster).

I fear the only way to ensure protection from a witch-hunt, would be total enclosure of the firearm, in some type of (quasi) off body carry (purse, fanny pack).

I "assume" that since open carry will not be permitted at an educational institution, the criminal penalty would be the same as exists now for conceal carrying there, a felony. So, for an aggressive prosecutor, printing or a brief accidental exposure, would also be a felony.

Just my $0.02

[jayinsat]

Forgive my legislative ignorance, did OC pass? Are we just waiting for Gov. Abbott to sign it into law?

[RHenriksen]

Forgive my legislative ignorance, did OC pass? Are we just waiting for Gov. Abbott to sign it into law?

Not yet. It needs a final vote in the Senate (where it was being debated yesterday), then it needs to be approved in the House, *then* it would go to the Governor for his signature.

[e-bil]

I guess the next question is when does the House take this up and Strauss make this die in committee again?

[gsansing]

I guess the next question is when does the House take this up and Strauss make this die in committee again?

HB 910 will have its hearing in the House today.

[jayinsat]

Forgive my legislative ignorance, did OC pass? Are we just waiting for Gov. Abbott to sign it into law?

Not yet. It needs a final vote in the Senate (where it was being debated yesterday), then it needs to be approved in the House, *then* it would go to the Governor for his signature.

[RHenriksen]

I guess the next question is when does the House take this up and Strauss make this die in committee again?

HB 910 will have its hearing in the House today.

It'll have a hearing in a House *committee*, not on the floor of the House for a final vote. Big difference. It *should* pass out of committee, but in order to go from there to the floor, it has to be scheduled via the calendar committee. That's where it could get hung up.

[DocV]

I am more concerned with Sen Huffman's amendment which purports to synch SB17 with SB11, in the event both are enacted.

I think Sen. West(?) offered an amendment to Sen Huffman's amendment. Something about adding "knowingly" to "intentionally", or vice-versa.

Charlie indicated that this would make it easier to prosecute.

...

The phrase is

and intentionally or knowingly displays the handgun in plain view of another person

My inner logician says the wording is redundant as one who 'knowingly' displays a handgun does so intentionally and one who 'intentionally' displays a handgun does so knowingly. However, I realized legislators dance to a different order of logic after I watched the debate on the floor

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am more concerned with Sen Huffman's amendment which purports to synch SB17 with SB11, in the event both are enacted.

I think Sen. West(?) offered an amendment to Sen Huffman's amendment. Something about adding "knowingly" to "intentionally", or vice-versa.

Charlie indicated that this would make it easier to prosecute.

...

The phrase is

and intentionally or knowingly displays the handgun in plain view of another person

My inner logician says the wording is redundant as one who 'knowingly' displays a handgun does so intentionally and one who 'intentionally' displays a handgun does so knowingly. However, I realized legislators dance to a different order of logic after I watched the debate on the floor

If the terms "intentionally" and "knowingly" were not defined in the Code, then I would agree. However, they are defined. There's a reason SB60 (1995) was drafted such that the culpable mental state required to convict a person of failure to conceal was intentional conduct. It's much easier for the state to prove a person acted "knowingly" because of the difference in the statutory definitions.

Chas.

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

[RogueUSMC]

The Houston Chronicle's online version posted an article about SB17 passing to engrossment. Note the photo they ran with the article.

Chas.

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texa ... 136705.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is it me or does that look like TAM's hat on the left?...lol

[RPBrown]

Okay, I did not get to hear any of the discussions yesterday and now I am confused (not unusual though).
As I understand it, the amendment to require a retention holster was tabled. However there was an amendment that requires additional training added to new classes on proper retention of firearms. Is this is correct? and if so, WHY the additional class requirements?
Sounds like typical bureaucracy to me.