Senate hearing to monitor open, campus carry gun laws

[mojo84]

At about 52:30, Sen Birdwell is talking about a possible change to 30.06 next session. Apparently there was some discussion/intention last session about using 30.06 to prevent BOTH CC and OC, but that intention didn't get written into the law. Buirdwell is discussing an intention to address that in 2017.

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.06 would prohibit OC only.

I think you have a typo in there somewhere

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I hope this was not the intent of the legislature.

[baldeagle]

January 26, 2016

Dear Senate Committee on State Affairs Committee Members,

Today you held hearings on Texas gun laws, specifically SB 11 that authorized campus carry and HB 910 that addressed open carry in Texas. During the hearings a number of witnesses testified regarding various aspects of the laws as well as their impact on Texas citizens and students.

Two witnesses particularly interested me because they made statements before the committee that were at odds with the known evidence.

All of the following “statements” are paraphrases of their testimony unless enclosed in quotes.

Moms Demand Action, Texas Chapter Leader, Anna Kehde said that 72% of Texans in a recent survey said they didn’t think students should be able to bring guns into college classrooms and 66% said students should not be allowed to bring guns into dorms

Ms. Kehde is most likely citing this poll put out by Everytown for Gun Safety
It is a “push poll” that doesn’t even account for licensing or age. It simply asks if college students should be allowed to carry in classrooms and have guns in the dorms. It does not explain that only students over 21 would be able to do so and those students would have to be trained and licensed by the state. The survey may be found here: http: //www.scribd.com/doc/259083392/Everytown- ... carry-poll

This UT/Texas Tribune poll found dramatically different results: http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/23/ ... tion-guns/
37% oppose campus carry, 26% support in approved places only and 25% support carrying anywhere. A majority, 51% support either unrestricted or approved carry on campuses.

Moms Demand Action representatives have been proven to provide false testimony in committee hearings during previous sessions, and Everytown’s “evidence” has been consistently debunked by researchers. Everytown is a gun control advocacy group funded by Michael Bloomberg that has a sordid history of misrepresenting facts. (C.f. http://bearingarms.com/firearms-dealer- ... us-report/, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -t-happen/, http://www.whycampuscarry.com/opponents.html, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -hook-clo/ )

This appears to be yet another example of biased information being provided to legislators to buttress a position that is at odds with the evidence as well as the opinions of the majority of Texas citizens.

UT History Professor - Joan Neuberger, who represents UT Gun Free, made statements that are provably false. She stated that research shows that there is “no evidence” to suggest that a person with a concealed handgun could protect themselves from a deranged person entering a classroom. The research “seems to go in the opposite direction.”

In fact there is research that shows that not only is being armed in an active shooter situation capable of resolving the issue, but even being unarmed and resisting can resolve the situation before the police even arrive. An FBI study showed that “13% of the incidents were stopped by courageous unarmed citizens…NOT police” and another 4% were stopped by armed citizens. Because the majority of active shooter incidents take place in gun free zones where citizens are legally disarmed, the use of firearms in self defense is seldom available.

The study found that 69% of active shooter incidents end in five minutes or less. Yet the average police response time is 3 minutes plus time to assess and address. So for at least 60% of the incident, the intended victims are left to their own devices in their fight to survive.

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/1 ... e-shooters

A 2014 study for the Police Executive Research Forum found that 50% of active shooter incidents ended before the police arrived, and 40% of those were resolved by armed and/or unarmed citizens on the scene. 25% were resolved by the police either by arresting or shooting the attacker. 60% of active shooters only had handguns, so a “battle” between an armed licensed citizen and an active shooter would not involve unequal use of force more than half the time.

Average length of time for an active shooter incident was 5 minutes. The average police response time was 3 minutes plus the time required to assess and address the situation.

http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/ ... 202014.pdf

I commend the legislature for resisting the temptation to create law based upon false information. Hopefully the data I have provided will assist in future efforts to better serve the citizens of this great state.



Sincerely,

Paul Schmehl, US Navy veteran and LTC holder

[Charles L. Cotton]

At about 52:30, Sen Birdwell is talking about a possible change to 30.06 next session. Apparently there was some discussion/intention last session about using 30.06 to prevent BOTH CC and OC, but that intention didn't get written into the law. Buirdwell is discussing an intention to address that in 2017.

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.06 would prohibit OC only.

I think you have a typo in there somewhere

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I hope this was not the intent of the legislature.

It most certainly was not!
Chas.

[mojo84]

At about 52:30, Sen Birdwell is talking about a possible change to 30.06 next session. Apparently there was some discussion/intention last session about using 30.06 to prevent BOTH CC and OC, but that intention didn't get written into the law. Buirdwell is discussing an intention to address that in 2017.

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.06 would prohibit OC only.

I think you have a typo in there somewhere

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I hope this was not the intent of the legislature.

It most certainly was not!
Chas.

Good. I didn't think it was but appreciate you confirming.

[jerry_r60]

Starting at 55:10 there is another interesting dialogue. I think it's the Harris County DA talking. His explanation of OC in a car by an LTC is that it must be in a belt or shoulder holster however, he says that holster can be "On or about" including in the seat beside you.

Sen. Birdwell tries to summarize to make it clear but I think he actually muddies it a bit more unintentionally. He says for an LTC, it must be "in a holster" and then point at his shoulder and belt he says on your shoulder or belt and then kind of pauses as he just points beside him like to the seat beside him and then starts talking about non LTC. So he didn't explicitly say the holster doesn't have to be on you but that is what the DA said and Birdwell confirmed when he said it that he thought he was spot on.

There was also discussion if this was just the Harris county interpretation or if he thought that was state wide and he said he thought it was pretty established law.

This was an interesting little dialogue.

[RoyGBiv]

At about 52:30, Sen Birdwell is talking about a possible change to 30.06 next session. Apparently there was some discussion/intention last session about using 30.06 to prevent BOTH CC and OC, but that intention didn't get written into the law. Buirdwell is discussing an intention to address that in 2017.

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.06 would prohibit OC only.

I think you have a typo in there somewhere

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

Thanks for the correction Jerry.
Posting from a mobile phone is fraught with peril and typos.

[dhoobler]

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I also means that we cannot get the 30.06 sign removed when the business owner intended to only prohibit open carry, but was misinformed about the law.

[RoyGBiv]

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I also means that we cannot get the 30.06 sign removed when the business owner intended to only prohibit open carry, but was misinformed about the law.

Why?

Me: If you only want to stop open carry in your establishment, you need to post the 30.07 sign. 30.06 will prevent me from entering, even if my gun is concealed.

Owner: Thanks... I didn't understand the difference in the two signs. I'll make the switch ASAP.

[dhoobler]

This was an interesting little tidbit. Yes, there is a slight typo there, I think the intended summary would be:

Summary: If passed in 2017, 30.06 would prohibit CC and OC. 30.07 would prohibit OC only.

This does reduce the burden on property owners but it also does make it that much easier to just put up the one sign and ban all carry. It creates an incentive to ban all carry, the incentive being the use of less wall space.

I also means that we cannot get the 30.06 sign removed when the business owner intended to only prohibit open carry, but was misinformed about the law.

Why?

Me: If you only want to stop open carry in your establishment, you need to post the 30.07 sign. 30.06 will prevent me from entering, even if my gun is concealed.

Owner: Thanks... I didn't understand the difference in the two signs. I'll make the switch ASAP.

The context of the post was that the law be changed so that the 30.06 would ban both open and concealed carry and the 30.07 sign would only ban open carry. The point of my post was that if the law was changed so that one sign banned both and a business owner posted that sign instead of posting two signs,we could not talk him/her into removing the 30.06 sign and only banning open carry. If they already have the new 30.06 sign that bans both OC and CC, it is unlikely that we will get them to buy a 30.07 sign to replace the 30.06 sign.

[Charles L. Cotton]

What you folks are saying about the impact of amending Tex. Penal Code §30.06 to apply to both open and concealed carry is correct. However, don't read too much into Sen. Birdwell's off-the-cuff comment. I believe it was simply a mistake. I have not spoken to him about this comment, but I have spoken to him many times, and this is merely my opinion.

The Senate version of the NRA/TSRA open-carry bill was SB17 carried by Sen. Estes. The House version of the NRA/TSRA open-carry bill was HB910 by Chairman Phillips. Every version of both HB910 and SB17, from the as-filed versions to the engrossed versions, did amend Tex. Penal Code §30.06(a)(1) to add the word "concealed" to prevent any argument that Section 30.06 applied to both open and concealed carry. (HB910, Section 41, Pg. 29 and SB17, Section 42, Pg. 30.)

Sen. Birdwell was our campus-carry champion and his bill was SB11. He spent countless hours betting this Bill passed. It was clearly his primary focus for the 2015 Legislative Session and fought like a tiger to get it passed. He was at the interim study hearing for SB11 and campus-carry. Again, I haven't talked to him about the hearing, but I have known him for a long while and anyone who has seen him testify on our gun bills knows he is an ardent supporter of gun rights. Gun owners have no better friend in Austin than Sen. Birdwell. I am certain he simply make a mistake caused by confusion between these two high-profile flagship bills.

Chas.

[RoyGBiv]

Coming from Sen Birdwell, clearly one of the strongest pro-2A voices in the chamber, his 30.06 comment yesterday was notable.

Thanks for the clarification Charles.

[RoyGBiv]

The point of my post was that if the law was changed so that one sign banned both and a business owner posted that sign instead of posting two signs,we could not talk him/her into removing the 30.06 sign and only banning open carry. If they already have the new 30.06 sign that bans both OC and CC, it is unlikely that we will get them to buy a 30.07 sign to replace the 30.06 sign.

And I disagree. I believe, as a business owner myself, that if a business owner is given the opportunity to understand that they've made an error and posted a sign that excludes all carry and not just open carry as they originally intended, I believe they would be quick to fix it. Unless their intention was to prevent all carry, and absorb the (debated elsewhere) business impact that decision would have. In which case we're talking about a different problem from 30.06/07 rules.

[RoyGBiv]

I was also notably impressed with the depth of knowledge the Harris County DA possessed on TX LTC law and associated issues. Not only about the details of the laws, but on the gray areas as well. Also, I came away with the impression that he was only concerned with the proper application of the laws, and was not trying to interpret or bend the law to fit any particular personal opinion...

[RHenriksen]

I was also notably impressed with the depth of knowledge the Harris County DA possessed on TX LTC law and associated issues. Not only about the details of the laws, but on the gray areas as well. Also, I came away with the impression that he was only concerned with the proper application of the laws, and was not trying to interpret or bend the law to fit any particular personal opinion...

That had to be someone in another position. The Harris County DA is a 'she' -- Devon Anderson

[RoyGBiv]

I was also notably impressed with the depth of knowledge the Harris County DA possessed on TX LTC law and associated issues. Not only about the details of the laws, but on the gray areas as well. Also, I came away with the impression that he was only concerned with the proper application of the laws, and was not trying to interpret or bend the law to fit any particular personal opinion...

That had to be someone in another position. The Harris County DA is a 'she' -- Devon Anderson

Hmmm... I'll go back and check...

You are correct... Thanks for the catch!

The individual testifying was Justin Wood, Chief Prosecutor from the Major Offenders Division, Harris County DA's office.
Complements to him.