Wait 'til next year. 2011 Texas Legislative Session

[Charles L. Cotton]

I would like to see an amendment to Texas Penal Code §46.035 Section h. The law presently reads, "It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9."

However, TPC §9.04 reads THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

These two sections are in conflict. I would like to suggest amending §46.05 Section h as follows: "It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force OR THE THREAT OF THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE under Chapter 9."

You have hacked into my computer and read one of my bills for 2011! We need to legislatively correct the decision in McDermott.

Chas.

[RiverCity.45]

4, prohibit establishing tolls on public roads

I'm all for toll rolls: buy the land, build the road, charge admission, and see if they will come.

If they won't, then that toll road is a failed model. It doesn't matter if it was built with tax money and the power of eminent domain, it will always be a failure. At least if it's a private venture, others will have the chance to buy the land and put it to better use; when it's a government road, taxpayers are on the hook forever.

The model sometimes is this: Private company builds road, is allowed to charge toll only for a specified number of years, at which time it reverts to the state's control and toll goes away. I saw it happen when I was a kid living in DFW area. I think I-20 between Fort Worth & Dallas used that model.

Toll roads have typically been successful in the areas I've lived, which is why they continue to use them.

I don't see toll roads as worth a breath in the legislature. I prefer they tackle other issues first.

[baldeagle]

You have hacked into my computer and read one of my bills for 2011! We need to legislatively correct the decision in McDermott.

Chas.

I didn't leave anything bad behind, though. I promise.

[Hoi Polloi]

Require Valid Signs in Order to Enforce
There is a LOT of conversation here about what constitutes a valid sign. It would be nice if a section was added which said...oh! what's that legal wording? All I'm thinking of is "It's a defense to prosecution..." but I'm trying to remember the other wording which means they aren't to take you in for it in the first place. Well, whatever that other wording is, it would be nice if that was added saying that they can't take you in unless the 30.06 sign adheres to all the statutory specifications. No more "close enough" or "intent" or Russian roulette on which cop you get. Every one knows exactly what's required.

Streamline Excluded Places
There's also a lot of debate about which places are not allowed. Hospitals that are owned or affiliated with universities? How distant does the relationship have to be to still apply? What about those Education Service Centers? I can't remember any of the other gray areas, but this board is full of them with discussions about not wanting to be a test case. It would be nice if they would streamline those places and make it more clear cut and manageable therefore making the knowledge accessible to the everyday man without consulting tax records or property deeds.

All Excluded Places Posted
I'd also like to see every place that is restricted have to put up valid signage quoting under which section they are restricted and make it a defense to prosecution that the place/event was not properly posted. Are monster truck rallies a sporting event? How about hot dog eating? They have a governing federation. It shouldn't be up to the CHL holder to try to interpret the law in that way. If it is restricted, post it and post why. The whole courthouse thing mentioned above could apply here, too. Only the actual parts of buildings being currently and actively used for court or court offices should be posted.

Remove Invalid Signs
I'd also like to see some sort of fine, penalty, and requirement to promptly remove invalid signs and restrictions. I was at a city owned museum the other day which had a sign on the door saying it is "unlawful to carry a handgun on the premises," when they meant that it is unlawful to carry an unlawful handgun. While CHL holders know it isn't unlawful for them (and not all do since it isn't clear which places are covered under the current wording when we have so many threads consulting deed records), the average citizen could be scared and scandalized by the incorrect legal advice posted on the door if he found out someone was carrying a concealed handgun with a CHL. That didn't work so well at Costco and I wouldn't want to be Texas' Erik Scott. People post 30.06 signs at courthouses and water departments. They aren't illegal, just invalid. And there's the thread about the city building that has a security guard with metal detector at the entrance to keep out the guns that are allowed there under the statutes. I'd like to see them be illegal and, more importantly, to see a way of getting them to take down the incorrect legal notice/restriction so that the signs that are up can be trusted and taken at face value.

I agree with many of the other posters above and think these changes aren't all that important in a gaining rights kind of way, but are important in the day to day application of having a CHL. We know that it is confusing officers and citizens and it could be easily rectified.

[Liberty]

We are required to attend 10 hours of classroom, to get our CHLs and 4 hours to renew it. We are provided with a neat little handbook which has the sign rules specified. Here in Texas we the rules are pretty much ion our favor, because the sign posters typically haven't had as extensive training that we have had. It is practically nonexistent that folks are prosecuted under 30.06 . In fact there are some folks here that have posted they have never seen a valid 30.06. Any sort of tampering with 30.06 could only serve as a catalyst to restrict more places. The last thing we need on the 6:00 o'clock news is a report that explains how to post a proper 30.06. Let the proprietors blissfully post their 51% and other invalid signs because they don't know better. We, who have been properly trained, know the difference.

We need to focus on Campus Carry and the parking lot bill. Perhaps create a bill making businesses and institutions liable to victims in target rich zones.

[A-R]

What do y'all think about removing 411.204(b) from the Government Code? This the statute that requires hospitals to post a useless, meaningless, unenforceable sign - similar to a 51% sign without the red 51%. It causes some confusion, especially amongst newly licensed folks. On the other hand, removing it from the statutes could stir the hornets nest and remind hospitals that aren't currently posting 30.06 signs that they now have to post 30.06 if they want to keep out CHLees.

GC 411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.

(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).

(b) A hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the hospital or nursing home, as appropriate, a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c) other than the requirement that the sign include on its face the number "51".

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.(d) A business that has a permit or license issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code and that is not required to display a sign under this section may be required to display a sign under Section 11.041 or 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code.(e) This section does not apply to a business that has a food and beverage certificate issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There are a number of minor things like this that need to be cleaned up and a good way to do that is have all of them in one "clean-up bill." Such bills don't make substantive changes.

Chas.

What do y'all think about removing 411.204(b) from the Government Code? This the statute that requires hospitals to post a useless, meaningless, unenforceable sign - similar to a 51% sign without the red 51%. It causes some confusion, especially amongst newly licensed folks. On the other hand, removing it from the statutes could stir the hornets nest and remind hospitals that aren't currently posting 30.06 signs that they now have to post 30.06 if they want to keep out CHLees.

GC 411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.

(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).

(b) A hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the hospital or nursing home, as appropriate, a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c) other than the requirement that the sign include on its face the number "51".

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.(d) A business that has a permit or license issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code and that is not required to display a sign under this section may be required to display a sign under Section 11.041 or 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code.(e) This section does not apply to a business that has a food and beverage certificate issued under the Alcoholic Beverage Code.

[dicion]

-Definition of 'school'
-Definition of 'Professional sporting event' - Or remove that restriction completely.

Whoever said lowering "Intentional Failure to Conceal" to a Class C Mis, is a GENIUS!
I like that one.

Whoever said that campus carry doesn't affect many people, I've been out of school for many years, and don't have any kids. I still find myself on a school campus often enough that it affects me!

Lots of other good ideas in this thread so far. I Like em. Keep em coming!

[megs]

I think all of 46.035 should be repealed but maybe that's not realistic.

The most important small change for me is to make the 46.15 nonapplicability based on being issued a valid license, not having the license in possession. Just like a cop doesn't have to carry ID to be exempt. You may still take the ride but the DA would have no grounds to prosecute and get your CHL suspended or permanently revoked. Right now, you're technically guilty of UCW if someone snatches your purse with your ID, unless the gun is also in the purse. Stupid law!

The second most important to me is lowering the penalty for intentional failure to conceal. Making it a Class C misdemeanor is good but making it a $100 civil penalty is better. That's a big enough fine that people won't open carry and scare the yankees, but small enough that many Texas peace officers won't hassle someone who open carries on private property with the property owner's permission and isn't bothering anyone...but if they do, at least you won't lose your CHL over it.

Third is making it a defense to prosecution or exemption for all of 46.03 and 46.035 if they don't post a 30.06 or 51% sign.

Campus carry is a distant fifth or sixth to me. I don't care about a parking lot bill.

[canvasbck]

Campus carry is a distant fifth or sixth to me. I don't care about a parking lot bill.

All I can say to this is just WOW.

These two issues are the ones creating target rich (aka gun free) zones and restrict our right to carry in ANY fashion. They barely make your radar, but being able to open carry on someone elses gun friendly property is a big item? Everyone has their own priorities, but I must say that I am confused by yours.

[boba]

I don't care much about campus carry either, now that I graduated. I couldn't get my CHL until I was 21 anyway.

I have mixed feelings about the parking lot bill. On one hand I sympathize with people who can't carry. On the other hand I respect the rights of property owners to prohibit guns. If the argument is RKBA as a fundamental right, it should apply everywhere to everybody, not just parking lots and employees.

The change to make concealed carry legal if a license is issued, whether or not the plastic is in your pocket, sounds like a good idea. I can legally work in the USA whether or not I have my social security card in my pocket.

[Liberty]

I can carry into the place I work and I haven't enrolled in a class at a college for more than 20 years. But it still has a high importance to me. I see and read about mass killing in the university and work places, and understand how easily these events could be stopped. We need to look beyond just ourselves when we support and vote the politicians in. Its the "What's in it it for me?" attitude of the voters that have got us in this this mess with the leftists. The Obamans promised the unions help, Hollywood support, promised a bigger government for the bureaucrats to control, Welfare folks bigger checks, and the uninsured free insurance. by the time they got to the working people all that was left is the bill.
John Kennedy once said, "Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do do for your government." Today maybe a better request would be, " ask not what your government can do for me, but what it can do for its good citizens."

[canvasbck]

I can carry into the place I work and I haven't enrolled in a class at a college for more than 20 years. But it still has a high importance to me. I see and read about mass killing in the university and work places, and understand how easily these events could be stopped. We need to look beyond just ourselves when we support and vote the politicians in. Its the "What's in it it for me?" attitude of the voters that have got us in this this mess with the leftists. The Obamans promised the unions help, Hollywood support, promised a bigger government for the bureaucrats to control, Welfare folks bigger checks, and the uninsured free insurance. by the time they got to the working people all that was left is the bill.
John Kennedy once said, "Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do do for your government." Today maybe a better request would be, " ask not what your government can do for me, but what it can do for its good citizens."

[joe817]

I can carry into the place I work and I haven't enrolled in a class at a college for more than 20 years. But it still has a high importance to me. I see and read about mass killing in the university and work places, and understand how easily these events could be stopped. We need to look beyond just ourselves when we support and vote the politicians in. Its the "What's in it it for me?" attitude of the voters that have got us in this this mess with the leftists. The Obamans promised the unions help, Hollywood support, promised a bigger government for the bureaucrats to control, Welfare folks bigger checks, and the uninsured free insurance. by the time they got to the working people all that was left is the bill.
John Kennedy once said, "Ask not what your government can do for you, but what you can do do for your government." Today maybe a better request would be, " ask not what your government can do for me, but what it can do for its good citizens."

Correction please. John F. Kennedy didn't just 'say' that in passing. And that's really not what he said. Change the wording "government" to "county" and you just about have it right.

The statement was made in his Inaugural Address on Friday, January 20, 1961

"...And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country...."

For his full Inaugural Address:
http://www.vlib.us/amdocs/texts/44kenn1.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please remember that this was a time period that the U.S. was entering into the Vietnam Conflict....soon to be the Vietnam War.

For those who weren't around or have not heard or read it, it's well worth reading.

[jester]

[youtube][/youtube]