TexasCHLforum.com

Support HB 302 by Rep. Dennis Paul (R-Houston)

We need witnesses with an LTC who have experienced being denied entrance to common areas of their condo or office space with their legally carried handgun by the posting of signage listed below. This denial could also include your customers, clients, or guests!

If you have a story to share

Step one: Please send me your written testimony, your impact story. This can serve as a handout and delivered to the committee prior to the hearing. Please include your full contact information and limit to one or two pages.

Next make a polite call or email to your State Rep. even if your State Representative is not "gun friendly". See the link below for their contact information. Urge all House members to Co-Author HB 302.

Finally are you willing to attend the hearing and testify before the committee, to share your impact statement in person, let me know! I'll put you on a contact list. We need you!

Please help
call or text 972-979-8616

Bill Explanation:

House Bill 302 by Rep. Dennis Paul protects the rights of owners or tenants of residential units or commercial spaces to lawfully possess firearms and ammunition in those locations, and to transport them directly en route between their vehicles and those residential units or commercial spaces.
Landlords and building owners can currently disenfranchise gun owners and effectively deny them the ability to protect themselves through contractual provisions prohibiting the possession or storage of firearms in apartment leases, condominium rules or commercial leases. Additionally, posting notice in common areas under Penal Code Section 30.05, 30.06 or 30.07 that prohibits firearms from being carried between personal vehicles and residential dwelling units or commercial offices forces gun owners to consider leaving their firearms in their cars or trucks, making them susceptible to theft. This method of restricting the carrying of handguns also conflicts with Penal Code Section 46.02, which allows a person to carry a handgun directly en route to a motor vehicle owned or controlled by the person.

<snip>

Alice Tripp
Legislative Director
TSRA-PAC

ELB wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:07 pm If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:35 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:07 pm If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

Pretty sure this only applies to condominium units where an individual owns a particular unit and has a share in ownership of the common areas, not apartment complexes which are wholly owned by a corporation or other entity. The condo management or association cannot legally forbid carrying for the owner, tenant or guests.

Again, I do not believe this applies to rental apartments where there is no individual ownership OR to assisted living facilities where the tenant is renting a unit from a corporation.

denwego wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 4:41 pm

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:35 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:07 pm If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

Pretty sure this only applies to condominium units where an individual owns a particular unit and has a share in ownership of the common areas, not apartment complexes which are wholly owned by a corporation or other entity. The condo management or association cannot legally forbid carrying for the owner, tenant or guests.

Again, I do not believe this applies to rental apartments where there is no individual ownership OR to assisted living facilities where the tenant is renting a unit from a corporation.

It will. Chapter 92 governs normal rented apartments, and the bill above amends that chapter along with 81 (condos) and 94 (things like trailer park properties). It may not apply to assisted living facilities like a nursing home because there are deeper issues of tenancy in various medical statutes than just a lease, but a typical multifamily apartment complex will be affect. Not a day too soon if you ask me, either.

RoyGBiv wrote: ↑Wed May 08, 2019 10:14 am Can someone explain the differences/reasoning between "Exception to the law..." and "Defense to prosecution"?

Seems that an "exception" to being charged with the crime would be much better than a "Defense" after being charged, but, maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks!

Sec. 2.02. EXCEPTION. (a) An exception to an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.

(c) This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective date of this code.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.