HB 1535 - Generally prohibiting the carrying of a Taser...

[k5dmb]

I know this isn't CHL directly but I noticed it includes re-wording 30.06 signs to include Tasers and other stun guns.

Is this a sly approach to re-working 30.06 verbage that might even affect CHLs?

David

[seamusTX]

I wasn't aware of this bill. Here's the text of the bill:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80 ... 01535I.htm

It makes carrying a "Taser or other stun gun" an offense, the same as carrying a handgun without a CHL or other authority.

- Jim

[k5dmb]

Thanks Jim, I forgot to post the link.

David

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't like the bill for a number of reasons, but as a general statement, anytime we have a bill dealing with the wording of TPC §30.06, it is dangerous as it has the potential of being amended to include harmful language.

Chas.

[seamusTX]

P.S.: I wonder why this bill was introduced. Has a stun gun ever been used to commit a crime? Is this something that police officials want?

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

I knew it was a matter of time before TASERs were regulated.

So know we will need a CTL to carry a TASER?

[k5dmb]

The bill sure doesn't seem to simply allow Taser if CHL, since:

(k) The provisions of Section 46.02 prohibiting the
carrying of a Taser or other stun gun do not apply to an individual
who carries a Taser or other stun gun and a valid license to carry a
Taser or other stun gun issued by the Department of Public Safety
under Subchapter H-1, Chapter 411, Government Code.
SECTION 7. Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subchapter H-1 to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER H-1. LICENSE TO CARRY A TASER OR OTHER STUN GUN
Sec. 411.220. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter, "Taser" and
"stun gun" have the meanings assigned by Section 46.01, Penal Code.
Sec. 411.221. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED TASER OR OTHER
STUN GUN. The department by rule shall establish a procedure for a
person to obtain a license to carry a Taser or other stun gun.

Looks like more than just an endorsement to the CHL.

And most interestingly:

(17) "Stun gun" means a device designed to propel
darts or other projectiles attached to wires that, on contact, will
deliver an electrical pulse capable of incapacitating a person.
(18) "Taser" means a stun gun manufactured by the
Taser company.

Guess my wife's OK since I got her an offbrand non-wired version... Think they're just after Taser?

[MrDrummy]

Has a stun gun ever been used to commit a crime?

Well, last year there was a moron up here in Lubbock who was using a tazer/stun gun on women, and then sexually assaulting them, while he had them chained up in the back of his truck. This happened 3 or 4 times, and right in my neighborhood.

Thankfully we moved from there.

[stevie_d_64]

I don't like the bill for a number of reasons, but as a general statement, anytime we have a bill dealing with the wording of TPC §30.06, it is dangerous as it has the potential of being amended to include harmful language.

Chas.

Remember how this effected our outlook on the "open carry" discussion???

How if we were given that option, that the risk of having the 30.06 wording could have been altered "very easily" if that were to ever come about???

This kinda proves that concern...

[Venus Pax]

So should we begin contacting them? What bill do we want them opposing?

[srothstein]

The proposal is a back door attempt to convince police to not carry Tasers, IMHO. There are a few people who think cops are killing people with Tasers and that we should not be allowed to do this. Of course, one of the arguments they get back is that they are so safe that anyone could carry one. There is no evidence yet that a Taser has caused a single death, even though around 200 people have died after being tased (most were certified as excited delirium deaths due to drug overdose by the M.E. responsible - some mention that Taser as a possible contributing factor). Anyway, there is also a bill to stop cops from carrying them at all, so this is along those lines.

But there are some interesting things to consider in the bill.

First, it is so poorly written that it has internal references to sections it doesn't include (they copied 46.035 but left out the section on sporting events. Of course, they did not catch the other reference so you need notice for a section that does not exist.

Second, the signage requirement means you have to ban both guns and Tasers and cannot choose to just ban one or the other. There are many ways this could play out for us. People who have no problem with Tasers may be convinced to not ban guns. People who realize how far the law is being carried could rebel and not post, based on their realization of government intrusion, even if they do not care one way or the other about the guns.

Third, and it ties into second, is that this means all of the current 30.06 signs would be invalid on Sep 1. The sign would no longer be a valid sign, even if it is now, if it is not expanded to include Tasers. How many business owners are going to know about this and really go to the trouble of fixing the signs for the new requirements?

Fourth, there is a requirement for a new license to carry a Taser. this is not an endorsement on your CHL or DL, but a whole new license. Of course, you have to show it (again, they just copied the CHL law), so if you had a CHL and a CTL, you would need to carry three documents to show a cop.

Finally, it gives the DPS an impossible requirement for the license. You have to prove your abilities with a Taser (as in qualify) to get a license. A civilian Taser is a one shot one time weapon that costs a couple hundred dollars. How do you qualify with a one time disposable weapon? It means you would have to buy a police version (which is legal if you want to) with rechargeable cartridges to qualify. I don't think this is really what the legislature intended.

To me, this law sounds like a knee jerk reaction from a very liberal anti-violence-of-any-type politician that stands no chance of passing. But we need to make sure we keep an eye on it to insure just that, again IMHO.

[KBCraig]

Interesting take, Steve. Thanks for the perspective!

I believe that police use of Tasers has saved many people from the butt-whuppin' they probably deserved. Given my druthers between gunshot wounds, blunt force from a PR-24 or Maglite, or a ride on the Taser lightning, I'd take the Taser.

Tasers are supposed to be an alternative to "laying on of hands", with the hope that the end result is safer for both officers and subjects. That said, I do believe the "hands off" approach results in cases of police using Tasers when they wouldn't have otherwise used any force. We've all seen the videos: Tasers deployed to force compliance in an uncooperative, but otherwise unthreatening, subject. A lack of patience doesn't justify going up a step on the force continuum.

That said, I take with a grain of salt most of the claims that "they didn't have to!" Tase someone, just the same as I look at claims that "they didn't have to shoot!" the guy who was charging officers with a knife.

Kevin

[jbirds1210]

.

Tasers are supposed to be an alternative to "laying on of hands", with the hope that the end result is safer for both officers and subjects. That said, I do believe the "hands off" approach results in cases of police using Tasers when they wouldn't have otherwise used any force. We've all seen the videos: Tasers deployed to force compliance in an uncooperative, but otherwise unthreatening, subject. A lack of patience doesn't justify going up a step on the force continuum. Kevin

Well said, I completely agree! I think it is wiser to look at the person behind the taser on a case by cases basis instead of trying to take them away from everyone. I used an electronic capture shield while working for TDCJ and had great results with it.....it saved many injuries before being stripped after a single death occured.

[GrillKing]

I think this change is bad for a number of the reasons stated above, but the good news is, that if it passes EVERY current 30.06 sign in the state is no longer binding as they will no longer have exact wording.....

[stevie_d_64]

Requiring a license to carry something that was intended to be a "less-than-lethal" method to stop an attacker or other threat, is something I believe is a bad direction to go in this state...

It will obviously be expected that the Texas DPS CHL office will more than likely be charged in processing these packages...Which WILL effect our firearms carrying licenses...

A training and certification program will have to be expanded or created...

Its a pretty expensive thing to purchase and keep reloads for...Even though it'll be a one shot deal (like someone mentioned above), its still way too expensive to use and maintain IMO...

The models I have seen are about $1000...I do not recall how much the reload cartridges are...

And if it starts at the "Tasers", why should it be surprising to reach out and include other "stun" type devices???

I just see this as a can of worms I'd rather not support...

If you want a device like this, and its intent is to be less than lethal, I do not support requiring a license to carry one for anyone...

Never mind the effect it could have on the 30.06 statute and other aspects of carrying something to defend yourself with...

Somethings afoot here...And its a bit stinky...