TX rep to author OC

[jordanmills]

@G.A. Heath:

Yes, those of us on THIS forum generally understand what the text of the laws means...and tend to agree with each other...however, tell that to the gentleman from Round Rock who accidentally exposed and then got himself a ride to jail along with an arrest record EVEN THOUGH the judge threw it out...I'm not worried about a CONVICTION if I'm doing things right, but I do worry about a nervous nelly type who calls in MWG, and the cops of course not wanting to lose their lives while "on the job" arrest first and let the courts sort later...but I don't have the kind of cash required just to throw around getting a bull arrest expunged from my record...and I have NEVER been arrested for ANYTHING. In fact, I've only ever had one speeding ticket, and that was one of those "country club" speed zones way outside where the city limits SHOULD have been. THAT is why I would like to see OC, just so that I never have to worry about accidental exposure, not so I can go swaggering around with a hog-leg on.

Taking the number of CHL's each year from 1996 through 2010 (2010 is estimated), there have been 3,770,107 CHL-man-years. I think I can recall hearing of three alleged arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Let's be overly cautious in our calculation and we'll use ten arrests in our formula: 10/3,770,107 = 2.652444612314717e-6 (I don't even know what that is! I think it's equates to 0.00000265.)

Do OC supporters really want to use the smoke screen of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal as a reason to pass open-carry? If so, credibility is at risk and I can promise that some Senator or Representative on a committee is going to inquire about the number and ratio of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Over-selling your case can be costly.

Chas.

I bet the arrest record is pretty significant to those three. What would it cost you to not try to discount them?

[Charles L. Cotton]

@G.A. Heath:

Yes, those of us on THIS forum generally understand what the text of the laws means...and tend to agree with each other...however, tell that to the gentleman from Round Rock who accidentally exposed and then got himself a ride to jail along with an arrest record EVEN THOUGH the judge threw it out...I'm not worried about a CONVICTION if I'm doing things right, but I do worry about a nervous nelly type who calls in MWG, and the cops of course not wanting to lose their lives while "on the job" arrest first and let the courts sort later...but I don't have the kind of cash required just to throw around getting a bull arrest expunged from my record...and I have NEVER been arrested for ANYTHING. In fact, I've only ever had one speeding ticket, and that was one of those "country club" speed zones way outside where the city limits SHOULD have been. THAT is why I would like to see OC, just so that I never have to worry about accidental exposure, not so I can go swaggering around with a hog-leg on.

Taking the number of CHL's each year from 1996 through 2010 (2010 is estimated), there have been 3,770,107 CHL-man-years. I think I can recall hearing of three alleged arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Let's be overly cautious in our calculation and we'll use ten arrests in our formula: 10/3,770,107 = 2.652444612314717e-6 (I don't even know what that is! I think it's equates to 0.00000265.)

Do OC supporters really want to use the smoke screen of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal as a reason to pass open-carry? If so, credibility is at risk and I can promise that some Senator or Representative on a committee is going to inquire about the number and ratio of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Over-selling your case can be costly.

Chas.

I bet the arrest record is pretty significant to those three.

If it is, they can file Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits.

What would it cost you to not try to discount them?

I don't understand what you are asking; please explain.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

I bet the arrest record is pretty significant to those three. What would it cost you to not try to discount them?

That's a ridiculous rejoinder. The anecdotal experience of those three people is completely irrelevant to Charles' point and equally irrelevant to getting OC passed in Austin. As Charles points out, when you start using silly edge cases like this to buttress your case you come across as desperate and your opponents begin to smell blood.

If people who support OC are really serious about getting it passed into law, they'd better be able to make better arguments than this or OC will never pass.

[Bullwhip]

I don't know, maybe the OC folks got it wrong by reading this forum and others. I read for a long time before I registered. Seems like a lot of people don't understand everythings and think brandishing or printing are crimes. Maybe their taught wrong, lots of people thinks its illegal to carry in hospitals too. Some posts here make it sound like some chl intructors don't know any better and teach bad info. I saw the instructors griping about the DPS lawyer giving bad info at instructor school. If dps is wrong what do you do?

Lot of good answers here but also a lot of questions that show maybe hte average chl wasn't taught right and doesn't know the law like he should. If Texas chls and some chls instructors don't know better maybe its okay if someone from another state is confused.

People who know the law know it says intentional not printing, but lots and lots of chls who don't study the law worry about it. They might change clothes or not carry all because they worry about being seen. A gun in the safe don't help nobody.

[blue]

In the Banking industry, Military and Civilian Security Back Ground checks, and many other careers, a police record of ANY kind is BAD NEWS. They WILL just hire, promote, some one else. This can really hurt the individual's career and the familys income and future for the children.

ANY SOCCER-MOM can destroy a persons future because of a 'bulge' or puff of wind.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT. PERIOD.

(see Handog/Roundrock - Almost killed, BIG $$$$$ to even try to clear his record.)
---Any one of us could be next.----

This Danger, Actual and Legal, to the CHLer can, AND SHOULD BE, eliminated -ASAP-


1. CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY ( CWL- not just handguns but knives also protected by TX STATE Pre-empt.)
(Includes STRONG Parking, Campus)
(San Antonio has knife laws that can bust a CHLer for a pocket knife while carrying a gun! so I hear.)

----CHLers have racked up a mighty fine record for many years. We have earned it!----


2. Open Carry-
( Have met a few folks, new to Tx, who were suprised we are NOT wearing six shooters, After all it IS TEXAS!)


I respect Mr. Cotton's view on the signs etc. but believe we all would be better off, in the long run, with
Constitutional. With OC in 2nd place.

Works in other States.


Best Regards,
Blue

[G.A. Heath]

1. CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY ( CWL- not just handguns but knives also protected by TX STATE Pre-empt.)
(Includes STRONG Parking, Campus)
(San Antonio has knife laws that can bust a CHLer for a pocket knife while carrying a gun! so I hear.)

Constitutional Carry is more than that. In Essence Constitutional Carry is legal open and concealed carry without a license. My longer term goal is to see Constitutional Carry similar to AZ and AK where you also have the option of a CHL for out of state reciprocity, to be exempted from the Federal Gun Free School Zones act, ect. Campus Carry would still be dependent upon a CHL due to FEDERAL law. Many folks, myself included, see Legal Open Carry as the first step towards Constitutional Carry.

[KC5AV]

In the Banking industry, Military and Civilian Security Back Ground checks, and many other careers, a police record of ANY kind is BAD NEWS. They WILL just hire, promote, some one else. This can really hurt the individual's career and the familys income and future for the children.

Best Regards,
Blue

It can, but has it?

[TexasRedneck]

I think part of this debate has gotten too far afield - which is normal, because many are highly opinionated about it on both sides.

To me, the bottom line is this - OC should be an option available to us if we're legally able to own a firearm. Period. However, I also agree that the timing may not be right if doing so derails campus carry. Thing is, it's pretty obvious to me that OCDO folks created quite a bit of havoc around here in general, and w/Charles in particular - so he's (understandably) pretty reluctant to look at anyone proposing the idea.

Charles, I am not a member of LSCDL or any other "open-carry" group. I am interested in the prospect, and will likely join in the future. I am a member of both the NRA and the TSRA, and as such am asking about the issues surrounding the support of such an idea in this state. As I read your comments, your issue is with regards to timing and how any such group is set up/operated. I've been in contact w/the key folks involved in the LSCDL and can tell you that some of the objections you expressed surprised them - not because they were wrong or right, but because they naively thought that they were "good" ideas. You correctly pointed out (as did I) that anything that distracts from the primary message gives an opportunity for the opposing side to distract/derail any meaningful dialogue in promoting their idea. I think you'll see some changes, and I know that they will be attempting to contact you w/regards to guidance/ideas/input/suggestions on how to move forward with it without putting other legislative efforts at risk.

[Heartland Patriot]

@Charles L. Cotton:

Alright, sir, so you are saying that folks getting arrested for accidental exposure just doesn't happen often enough to warrant worrying about it, AND that a person can "file Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits" if they are mistreated in such a fashion. How much does it cost to file one of those lawsuits? I know that lawyers are highly educated folks who paid a lot of money as well as invested a lot of time to get that way. As such I would imagine they expect quite the return on the investment of their time and efforts to bring a lawsuit as well as not taking a case unless they can have a reasonable expectation of winning it. Like I said before I do NOT belong to any open carry group or organization; I'm just a mechanic with a CHL trying to learn stuff on here. I believe that forewarned is forearmed...so I read and I ask questions. This IS life and death stuff, if not today or tomorrow, but maybe someday. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble and spent the money to get the license. And I would guess that is true of you, as well.

[G.A. Heath]

I doubt he is saying they are not worth worrying about. Rather than try to make a mountain out of a mole hill, the OC movement needs to concentrate on the larger issues that will ensure that they see better results. Essentially How can you promote OC so that it benefits the most people rather than trying to help a statistically non-existent few? The legislature is made up of politicians who see their votes as helping them get re-elected, serving a few people while ignoring the majority will cost them their jobs. This is why most politicians pay attention to what the NRA says while the Brady Bunch only appeals to the few who are more interested in their ideology than keeping their job.

[Bullwhip]

Campus Carry would still be dependent upon a CHL due to FEDERAL law.

I think when people say campus carry they mean college. Federal ban is only k-12.

I don't think the open carry people would work against any campus carry or parking lot bill. I agree with them about not fighting other bills just to get yours passed.

[Purplehood]

Campus Carry would still be dependent upon a CHL due to FEDERAL law.

I think when people say campus carry they mean college. Federal ban is only k-12.

I don't think the open carry people would work against any campus carry or parking lot bill. I agree with them about not fighting other bills just to get yours passed.

I was under the impression that it was state schools, period. I could be wrong. I guess it depends on how the bill is worded.

[RHenriksen]

I was under the impression that it was state schools, period. I could be wrong. I guess it depends on how the bill is worded.

Here's the wording:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

82R1229 JSC-D

By: Simpson H.B. No. 86



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of
institutions of higher education.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2031. CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ON
CERTAIN CAMPUSES. (a) For purposes of this section, "institution
of higher education" and "private or independent institution of
higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003,
Education Code.
(b) A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or
about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the
campus of an institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state.
(c) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may not
adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license
holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.
(d) An institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education in this state may
establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the
storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential buildings
that are owned or operated by the institution and located on the
campus of the institution.
SECTION 2. Section 411.208, Government Code, is amended by
amending Subsections (a), (b), and (d) and adding Subsection (f) to
read as follows:
(a) A court may not hold the state, an agency or subdivision
of the state, an officer or employee of the state, an institution of
higher education or a private or independent institution of higher
education, an officer or employee of an institution of higher
education or a private or independent institution of higher
education, a peace officer, or a qualified handgun instructor
liable for damages caused by:
(1) an action authorized under this subchapter or a
failure to perform a duty imposed by this subchapter; or
(2) the actions of an applicant or license holder that
occur after the applicant has received a license or been denied a
license under this subchapter.
(b) A cause of action in damages may not be brought against
the state, an agency or subdivision of the state, an officer or
employee of the state, an institution of higher education or a
private or independent institution of higher education, an officer
or employee of an institution of higher education or a private or
independent institution of higher education, a peace officer, or a
qualified handgun instructor for any damage caused by the actions
of an applicant or license holder under this subchapter.
(d) The immunities granted under Subsections (a), (b), and
(c) do not apply to an act or a failure to act by the state, an
agency or subdivision of the state, an officer of the state, an
institution of higher education or a private or independent
institution of higher education, an officer or employee of an
institution of higher education or a private or independent
institution of higher education, or a peace officer if the act or
failure to act was capricious or arbitrary.
(f) For purposes of this section, "institution of higher
education" and "private or independent institution of higher
education" have the meanings assigned by Section 411.2031.
SECTION 3. Sections 46.03(a) and (c), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal
knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or
educational institution, any grounds or building on which an
activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being
conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or
educational institution, whether the school or educational
institution is public or private, unless:
(A) pursuant to written regulations or written
authorization of the institution; or
(B) the person possesses or goes on the physical
premises of an institution of higher education or private or
independent institution of higher education, or on any grounds or
building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being
conducted, with a concealed handgun that the person is licensed to
carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an
election or while early voting is in progress;
(3) on the premises of any government court or offices
utilized by the court, unless pursuant to written regulations or
written authorization of the court;
(4) on the premises of a racetrack;
(5) in or into a secured area of an airport; or
(6) within 1,000 feet of premises the location of
which is designated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as a
place of execution under Article 43.19, Code of Criminal Procedure,
on a day that a sentence of death is set to be imposed on the
designated premises and the person received notice that:
(A) going within 1,000 feet of the premises with
a weapon listed under this subsection was prohibited; or
(B) possessing a weapon listed under this
subsection within 1,000 feet of the premises was prohibited.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "private or
independent institution of higher education" have the meanings
assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.
(2) [(1)] "Premises" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035.
(3) [(2)] "Secured area" means an area of an airport
terminal building to which access is controlled by the inspection
of persons and property under federal law.
SECTION 4. Section 46.035, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (l) to read as follows:
(l) Subsection (b)(2) does not apply on the premises where a
collegiate sporting event is taking place if the actor was not given
effective notice under Section 30.06.
SECTION 5. Section 46.11(c)(1), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning ["Institution of higher
education" and "premises" have the meanings] assigned by Section
481.134, Health and Safety Code.
SECTION 6. Section 411.208, Government Code, as amended by
this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after
the effective date of this Act. A cause of action that accrued
before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in
effect immediately before the effective date of this Act, and that
law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 7. Sections 46.03(a) and (c), Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 46.035(l), Penal Code, as added by
this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the
effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurred before that date.
SECTION 8. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

[Charles L. Cotton]

@Charles L. Cotton:

Alright, sir, so you are saying that folks getting arrested for accidental exposure just doesn't happen often enough to warrant worrying about it, AND that a person can "file Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits" if they are mistreated in such a fashion. How much does it cost to file one of those lawsuits? I know that lawyers are highly educated folks who paid a lot of money as well as invested a lot of time to get that way. As such I would imagine they expect quite the return on the investment of their time and efforts to bring a lawsuit as well as not taking a case unless they can have a reasonable expectation of winning it. Like I said before I do NOT belong to any open carry group or organization; I'm just a mechanic with a CHL trying to learn stuff on here. I believe that forewarned is forearmed...so I read and I ask questions. This IS life and death stuff, if not today or tomorrow, but maybe someday. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble and spent the money to get the license. And I would guess that is true of you, as well.

"Alright sir" here is your response. If changing the law to benefit 3 people doesn't have a potential downside to other citizens, then it is easier to take on that project. (This ignores the need to use your political resources to bring the biggest benefit to the most people.) However, if changing the law to help 3 people puts over 450,000 CHL's (and more everyday) at risk of losing the right to carry defensive handguns in a significant number of businesses, then it becomes an unjustifiable risk.

Support open-carry if you will, but arguing that arrests for unintentional failure to conceal is a reason to pass OC is an unsupportable position that damages the credibility of OC movement.

As for the cost of retaining an attorney, that the individual's call, just the decision on what house to buy, what car to buy, and whether you eat at home or go out. You can make that decision based upon how important the issue is to you.

Chas.

[Heartland Patriot]

@Charles L. Cotton:

First, I intended no offense. I really am just trying to wrap my thoughts around this. Second, other than to support it in a general pro-Second Amendment stance, and since the downsides of OC have been pointed out to me, why do so many (gun) folks seem to support OC? If it isn't going to do us any good, why do they advocate for it? I really thought the reason to be (besides the rights issue) to REMOVE hassles for permit holders in particular and the citizenry in general. I do see now that it is much more problematic than that. And if the biggest hurdle is public opinion, how would we go about changing that? Can it be done? All this confuses the heck out of me, looking at states like Arizona and Alaska. I guess I just don't have the background or knowledge to ask the right questions. My apologies if I came off the wrong way or caused any problems. I won't touch this one any more, but I do await the new legislature to see how they handle the parking lot and campus issues. Thank you and have a good day.