TexasCHLforum.com

From http://www.NRAILA.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Newly Introduced

Additional Pro-Gun Measures Introduced in Texas


Previously, we reported on approximately six NRA-backed issues filed so far in the 2013 Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. A few more bear mentioning with several weeks left until the bill filing deadline the first week of March. The NRA-ILA will keep you posted as to which committees these bills are referred and if and when a public hearing is scheduled on any of them.

HB 1077 by Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt would prohibit institutions of higher education from enforcing policies preventing students from lawfully transporting and storing legally-owned firearms in their locked private motor vehicles parked on-campus.

HB 1078 by Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt eliminates the criminal penalty against Concealed Handgun Licensees carrying for protection on the premises of an institution of higher education.

HB 1142 by Rep. James White allows school districts to offer an elective course in firearms for grades 9-12, to include instruction on the history of the Second Amendment and safety training and be taught by a qualified CHL instructor or peace officer.

HB 1194 by Rep. Chris Paddie allows open carry as an option for Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees, similar to legislation filed by Rep. George Lavender (HB 700).

HB 1298 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland aims to remove restrictions on Concealed Handgun Licensees carrying in locations where a school field trip is occurring, if the CHL is not a student, teacher, administrator or chaperone on the field trip.

HB 1304 by Rep. Kenneth Sheets protects against inadvertent or accidental display of a handgun by a Concealed Handgun Licensee, similar to legislation filed by Sen. Craig Estes (SB 299).

Please contact your state Representative and politely urge him or her to support these pro-gun reforms when they come up for a vote. The NRA-ILA will keep you informed on these and other firearm-related measures this session in the Lone Star State.



Previously Introduced


Texas: NRA – Backed Bills Under Consideration in the Lone Star State

Posted on February 5, 2013

The 2013 session of the Texas Legislature is underway and multiple firearm-related bills have been introduced. Below are some of the highlights so far this session.

House Bill 47 authored by Representative Dan Flynn (R-Van) would lower the current hours required for the initial Concealed Handgun License course from 10 hours to "not less than 4 or more than 6, not to include time on the shooting range." Only 6 states out of 39 require more classroom hours than Texas.

House Bill 508 authored by Representative Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City) would add protections to your right to carry and eliminate confusion by imposing a fine for the improper posting of the PC 30.06 sign at locations not listed as off-limits in statute, excluding private property.

House Bill 698 authored by Representative Drew Springer (R-Muenster) would alleviate the burden on people applying for a CHL by only requiring applicants to submit digital or electronic fingerprints if a facility with the capability to process those fingerprints exists within a 25-mile radius of the applicant’s residence address. This would eliminate CHLs driving hundreds of miles to the closest L-1 printing franchise.

House Bill 700 by Representative George Lavender (R-Texarkana) would allow a person with a Texas concealed handgun license to have the option of carrying concealed or openly holstered. Expect a committee substitute to create a sign for use by private property owners not wishing to restrict those carrying concealed.

Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 972 authored by Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) and Representative Allen Fletcher (R-Cypress), respectively, would allow adult concealed handgun licensees to protect themselves in buildings and facilities located on the campus of a public college or university. This legislation was previously reported here by the NRA-ILA.

Senate Bill 299 authored by Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) would protect against inadvertent or accidental display of a handgun by a Concealed Handgun Licensee.

This list above highlights only a few of the many pro-gun bills filed in Austin so far this session. Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated on this and all other firearm-related legislation this session. In the meantime, please contact your state Senator and Representative, and encourage them to support all pro-gun legislation. Contact information for your state legislators can be found here.

House Bill 508 authored by Representative Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City) would add
protections to your right to carry and eliminate confusion by imposing a fine for the
improper posting of the PC 30.06 sign at locations not listed as off-limits in statute, excluding private property.



This is a bad one it will encourage anti gun PLACES to post valid signs This will make more DANGEROUS GUN FREE ZONES

tommyg wrote:House Bill 508 authored by Representative Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City) would add
protections to your right to carry and eliminate confusion by imposing a fine for the
improper posting of the PC 30.06 sign at locations not listed as off-limits in statute, excluding private property.



This is a bad one it will encourage anti gun PLACES to post valid signs This will make more DANGEROUS GUN FREE ZONES

I fail to understand your reasoning. Right now, municipal governments that are not ALLOWED by statute to post buildings 30.06 are doing it anyway. This practice reduces the # of places you can carry w/o any risk of arrest. By putting some teeth into the law, providing for penalties for public employees who incorrect post a 30.06 sign where it's not allowed to be displayed, things will improve for CHL holders.

tommyg wrote:House Bill 508 authored by Representative Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City) would add
protections to your right to carry and eliminate confusion by imposing a fine for the
improper posting of the PC 30.06 sign at locations not listed as off-limits in statute, excluding private property.



This is a bad one it will encourage anti gun PLACES to post valid signs This will make more DANGEROUS GUN FREE ZONES

This bill applies only to public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs. It doesn't apply to posting private property.

Chas.

I do have a question, why was HB 1298 even written? the laws already allows me to carry where a school sponsored activity is taking place so long as I am not part of said activity, nor a spectator of said activity IE. being at the houston zoo when a school is having a field trip there does not mean I have to leave or put my weapon in my vehicle and return. so what is the purpose?

could it possibly be a statement of what is already in the law as a clarification?? or is there some misunderstanding of what is written??

JP171 wrote:I do have a question, why was HB 1298 even written? the laws already allows me to carry where a school sponsored activity is taking place so long as I am not part of said activity, nor a spectator of said activity IE. being at the houston zoo when a school is having a field trip there does not mean I have to leave or put my weapon in my vehicle and return. so what is the purpose?

could it possibly be a statement of what is already in the law as a clarification?? or is there some misunderstanding of what is written??

The problem is, the way you are interpreting it ("so long as I am not part of said activity") is a good commonsense way of interpreting legislative intent.

However, that is not what the language of the statute reads:

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (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, nor a spectator . . . .

The statute, as written, could even conceivably apply to someone sitting in McDonalds eating their lunch when a school bus carrying kids on a field trip pulls up and all the kids pile out and come inside to eat lunch. Now, I know that is not what the legislature intended, but a hostile DA could still prosecute under the statute language as written.

The Fort Worth Zoo seems to have upped the ante. From Texas3006.com:

Sign is now located outside of the main entrance, to the west of the ticket booth.

Posted on: 2013-01-26 11:30:39

It is these types of blatant violations this law would prevent, or at least they could collect some revenue for it.

Jaguar wrote:The Fort Worth Zoo seems to have upped the ante. From Texas3006.com:

Sign is now located outside of the main entrance, to the west of the ticket booth.

[ Image ]

Posted on: 2013-01-26 11:30:39

It is these types of blatant violations this law would prevent, or at least they could collect some revenue for it.

That's not a legal sign, is it? Doesn't look like 1 in block lettering?

The FTW zoo is a mess. Owned by Fort Worth City, Run by the Zoological Association, School activities........

APynckel wrote:

Jaguar wrote:
That's not a legal sign, is it? Doesn't look like 1 in block lettering?

No it is NOT legal because it is City property. I don't know how the whole school thing plays in to it though.

APynckel wrote:

Jaguar wrote:The Fort Worth Zoo seems to have upped the ante. From Texas3006.com:

Sign is now located outside of the main entrance, to the west of the ticket booth.

[ Image ]

Posted on: 2013-01-26 11:30:39

It is these types of blatant violations this law would prevent, or at least they could collect some revenue for it.

That's not a legal sign, is it? Doesn't look like 1 in block lettering?

If the post on which the sign is mounted has a 2.5" OD, then the letters appear about 1" high.

I did not take the photo, haven't been to the FW Zoo in a few years and the last time I was there they had a sign inside the gate, legal size but I do not believe it is legal since it is on city owned property and after you enter the premises. Moving it outside the gate makes it "less illegal" for them as now it seems to fulfill all the requirements of 30.06 if the letters are 1 inch, but still they are owned by the City of Fort Worth which leaves it in a gray area. From what I have heard, the zoo says they have frequent school activities there and that is why they can post it.

I don't believe this has been settled by case law, and I do not wish to be the test case. I would like this legislation to pass to clear up these issues before anyone has to be the test case.

PC §30.06 TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (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 pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;

Even if it was a school, our civil rights are only revoked inside buildings.