jmorris wrote:The way I read it, the new verbiage for 06 & 07 prohibits both licensed and unlicensed carry. The text within brackets [] will be struck. Going to reduce the size of the sign.
SECTION 24. The heading to Section 30.06, Penal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY PERSON [LICENSE HOLDER] WITH [A]
CONCEALED HANDGUN.
SECTION 25. Sections 30.06(a), (c), (d), and (e), Penal
Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person [license holder] commits an offense if the
person [license holder]:
(1) carries a concealed handgun [under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,] on property of
another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a
person [license holder] with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) ["License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
[(3)] "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by person [license holder] with [a] concealed
handgun), a person [licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law),] may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
I think you got it. Keeps 06 and 07 as the (only) way to prohibit licensed/unlicensed carry under GC 411 authority, it still makes 30.05 irrelevant to handgun carry, and still allows for MPA, LEO, and employee carry past 30.06/7.
I'd agree with your assessment if the CSHB1911 didn't end with
SECTION 21. This Act takes effect September 1, 2017.
I think there is some confusion as to what version of the bill is being discussed. As of the time of this post the Texas Legislature's website has only the text of HB1911 as it was introduced. The OP posted text from what I understand to be the final Committee Substitute version. That document is a PDF which you can find the download/view link in the first post of this thread. The language in that version does NOT alter 30.06/30.07 while making 30.05 apply to unlicensed carry.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?
Chance favors the prepared.Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless. There is no safety in denial.When seconds count the Police are only minutes away. Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?
I sure hope that the 30.06 wording isn't a poison pill. If this is the wording the bill must be stopped.
CHL holders will big time losers with the now smaller easier signs. Any bill messing with the 30/06 signs was dangerous for us. The one sign does all makes it even more tempting for the gun banners. Is it too late to stop this bill? Is TSRA still supporting it?
Good bill gone bad!
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
Liberty wrote:I sure hope that the 30.06 wording isn't a poison pill. If this is the wording the bill must be stopped.
CHL holders will big time losers with the now smaller easier signs. Any bill messing with the 30/06 signs was dangerous for us. The one sign does all makes it even more tempting for the gun banners. Is it too late to stop this bill? Is TSRA still supporting it?
Good bill gone bad!
The version posted by the OP in the first post only mentions Section 30.06 twice and 30.07 once in changes made to section 46.035 in section fifteen of the bill. That version of the bill does not touch 30.06/30.07. While the text the OP posted is not official yet, it is exactly the same as something that was emailed to my podcast account about the same time by a different party so I think this is at the very least a near final draft of CSHB1911 if not the final version of CSHB1911.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
Liberty wrote:I sure hope that the 30.06 wording isn't a poison pill. If this is the wording the bill must be stopped.
CHL holders will big time losers with the now smaller easier signs. Any bill messing with the 30/06 signs was dangerous for us. The one sign does all makes it even more tempting for the gun banners. Is it too late to stop this bill? Is TSRA still supporting it?
Good bill gone bad!
I was thinking the same thing. I would think that property owner's would want a way to ban unlicensed carry while allowing licensed carry.
Anti-gun groups would do the same thing that they did before Open Carry become effective. They will use fear and shame tactics to convince many many more businesses to post the 30.06/30.07 signs because the businesses need to ban UNLICENSED carry. Of course we know that it will impact people living in the big cities more than it will impact people living in smaller towns. It seems very unfortunate that the committee decided to apply 30.06/30.07 to unlicensed carry.
LTC since 2015
I have contacted my state legislators urging support of Constitutional Carry Legislation HB 1927
Liberty wrote:I sure hope that the 30.06 wording isn't a poison pill. If this is the wording the bill must be stopped.
CHL holders will big time losers with the now smaller easier signs. Any bill messing with the 30/06 signs was dangerous for us. The one sign does all makes it even more tempting for the gun banners. Is it too late to stop this bill? Is TSRA still supporting it?
Good bill gone bad!
I was thinking the same thing. I would think that property owner's would want a way to ban unlicensed carry while allowing licensed carry.
Anti-gun groups would do the same thing that they did before Open Carry become effective. They will use fear and shame tactics to convince many many more businesses to post the 30.06/30.07 signs because the businesses need to ban UNLICENSED carry. Of course we know that it will impact people living in the big cities more than it will impact people living in smaller towns. It seems very unfortunate that the committee decided to apply 30.06/30.07 to unlicensed carry.
My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.
We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.
I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.
Ruark wrote:Sheesh. So if a business had a 30.07 sign, but no gunbuster sign, and I wanted to go in carrying openly, I could toss my LTC into the glove box before I went into the store. Then I'd be a legal unlicensed carrier.......????
This is all going to be idiotically complicated. You won't find 1 business owner in 100,000 that will have a correct understanding of everything.
It's already borderline idiotically complicated, but yeah, this would push it over the top. I'd like to see some grand bargain where we eliminate 30.06/30.07 in exchange for a gunbuster sign not having the force of law on those with an LTC.
Having said that, I'm at the point where I desperately hope constitutional carry passes this session because it seems we've again sacrificed some mighty good legislation (i.e. HB560) to get it done, just like we did in 2015 to get open carry. If constitutional carry fails... oh man, I don't want to think about it.
Ruark wrote:Sheesh. So if a business had a 30.07 sign, but no gunbuster sign, and I wanted to go in carrying openly, I could toss my LTC into the glove box before I went into the store. Then I'd be a legal unlicensed carrier.......????
This is all going to be idiotically complicated. You won't find 1 business owner in 100,000 that will have a correct understanding of everything.
It's already borderline idiotically complicated, but yeah, this would push it over the top. I'd like to see some grand bargain where we eliminate 30.06/30.07 in exchange for a gunbuster sign not having the force of law on those with an LTC.
Having said that, I'm at the point where I desperately hope constitutional carry passes this session because it seems we've again sacrificed some mighty good legislation (i.e. HB560) to get it done, just like we did in 2015 to get open carry. If constitutional carry fails... oh man, I don't want to think about it.
This is a case of putting all of your eggs in one basket, and then just hoping the fox doesn't come steal them. If unlicensed carry would also eliminate, or greatly reduce, prohibited places, I would be more excited about it. Or if 1911, was presented, and 560 was the "compromise" package, then I could understand the thought process, but I believe that this, while a good bill on it's face, will cost more compromises, and be weakened to to the point of being ineffective, if it gets close to passage at all. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
ralewis wrote:My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.
We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.
I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.
I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.
At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.
ralewis wrote:My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.
We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.
I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.
I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.
At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.
Again..
Just because this was not the legislation I was hoping to get passed this session. I have contacted my reps to get behind it. To me, its a case of better some, than none. I know that HB560 would have been a battle, and would have probably had to have some concessions in it, but it is clear where the representatives stood, when no one co-sponsored it. Unlicensed carry, will be an even bigger battle, but if some of the more jelly-spined Republicans, get behind it, we can get it passed. Perhaps after a couple of years of no problems with it, we can then get prohibited places removed. JMHO
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second
ralewis wrote:My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.
We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.
I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.
I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.
At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.
Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.
And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.
Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.
ralewis wrote:Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.
And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.
Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.
I hear you. I haven't followed the legislative stuff as closely this session as I usually do but this whole CC issue has been confusing to me. I had pretty much assumed that after the knock-down drag-out it took to get OC last time, there wouldn't be any political capital left for another high-profile fight, and so an HB560 type bill could quietly slip in under the radar. I guess since several other states have adopted CC in the interim, we decided the time was right? I don't know, but I trust our political folks who know what to push and when and this is where we are right now. I do wish there would have been some kind of compromise package presented that would get some other things (like closing the government building loophole), but we'll see.
What else could possibly be "on deck" if we get constitutional carry? We already knocked out Open Carry and Campus Carry - I can't think of any other elephants in the room.
ralewis wrote:Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.
And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.
Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.
I hear you. I haven't followed the legislative stuff as closely this session as I usually do but this whole CC issue has been confusing to me. I had pretty much assumed that after the knock-down drag-out it took to get OC last time, there wouldn't be any political capital left for another high-profile fight, and so an HB560 type bill could quietly slip in under the radar. I guess since several other states have adopted CC in the interim, we decided the time was right? I don't know, but I trust our political folks who know what to push and when and this is where we are right now. I do wish there would have been some kind of compromise package presented that would get some other things (like closing the government building loophole), but we'll see.
What else could possibly be "on deck" if we get constitutional carry? We already knocked out Open Carry and Campus Carry - I can't think of any other elephants in the room.
Oh those elephants are sneaky and creep up slowly but forcefully.
I spend a month in PA every year, and carry while there every day. I just wish TX would aspire this usually blue (but thankfully RED this cycle) state off limits locations where you can carry in a bar and sporting event. Also, signs have no force of law there, and you have to be asked to leave before it's a crime. I understand why we did what we did here in TX, but my PA data point influences my opinion on where I'd prefer TX end up.
