TexasCHLforum.com

I just received the email below from The Shooter's Log, dated this morning, May 23:

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Bills Allowing Permitless Carry and First-Responder Carry Advance

By Woody published on May 23, 2017 in Legal, News

A Texas House committee has approved legislation that would allow handguns to be carried—concealed or in a holster—without a state-issued license. Also, the Texas Senate has passed SB 1408, a bill to allow first responders to carry concealed.

[Pre-paid legal service] Logo

The just-passed version of HB 1911’s permitless carry provisions approved by the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee contained several substantial changes from previous versions.

To carry without a permit, gun owners would have to meet existing LTC standards: be 21 years of age or older, have no criminal convictions, and be eligible to purchase a weapon under federal and state laws. The previous version would have allowed guns to be carried by those 18 and older.
Churches and places of worship would no longer be prohibited places to carry a gun unless they posted 30.06 and/or 30.07 signs.
Handguns carried in the open would still be required to be kept in a holster, but the restrictions on them being in a belt or shoulder holsters would be loosened.

“This bill simply creates an unlicensed option to carrying a handgun,” said Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford., chairman of the committee.

A competing bill, House Bill 375 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, wasn’t considered for a vote. Stickland’s legislation would allow anybody who legally owns a firearm to carry it without a license—a much broader franchise than what’s being considered in HB 1911.

“We understand that for the most part, Texans are satisfied with the current carry laws we have now. However, there is still a significant number of Texans who believe that if you’re a law-abiding citizen, you shouldn’t necessarily have to buy your way to a right to bear arms through a license,” Rep. James White (R-Hillister) told the Austin American-Statesman.

Over in the state Senate, SB 1408, brought by Senator Don Huffines (R-Dallas), would allow first responders to carry a handgun on duty if they have Licenses to Carry (LTC) and have completed a special on-duty first responder training course that will be approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Senator Huffines said, “As first responders answer our cries for help, we cannot leave them exposed to attack. First responders do dangerous work and sometimes come under fire. In a time in which our police are targeted just because of their uniform and badge, we must not leave first responders disarmed and exposed to danger, either.”

If you feel that either piece of legislation should continue, please contact your representative and voice your support for these measures.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I was under the impression that this bill was pretty much dead. What's the real story?

All gun bills that haven't passed both sides of congress by now are dead. That includes 1911, emergency responder, school grounds clarification.

Edit: At least that is what I have heard/read/understand. Due to this being the last few days of the session and some of the big issues (sunset bills) not being done yet, smaller bills that we support are pretty much dead. That is what I think I know.

I'm getting conflicting stories as well.

I'll just keep my mouth shut (probably should have done that all long) until session is over and/or Charles chimes in.

I wonder who these guys are who are sending out fake news?

Another HB1911 thread? There's already one for the original bill and another one for the substitute. Why a 3rd one? I was advised all discussion regarding a bill is to remain in one thread.

This bill is definitely dead and the email sender from the OP is definitely behind the times, I don't think we need any more replies!

[quote="mojo84"] Why a 363rd one? /quote]

Because other websites are still sending out conflicting reports about the alleged status of the Bill as recently as this morning.

RossA wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Why a 363rd one? /quote]

Because other websites are still sending out conflicting reports about the alleged status of the Bill as recently as this morning.

And that justifies a separate topic? It was conveyed to me by the mods in no uncertain terms that all discussion relating to a bill should remain in one thread.

Sorry, I don't remember seeing that instruction.
You don't have to read all of the HB1911 threads, you know. If they really offend you that much.

RossA wrote:Sorry, I don't remember seeing that instruction.
You don't have to read all of the HB1911 threads, you know. If they really offend you that much.

Who said I am offended. The moderators have informed me they want all discussion regarding a bill in one thread. I'm just passing that along and asking a question.

mojo84 wrote:

RossA wrote:Sorry, I don't remember seeing that instruction.
You don't have to read all of the HB1911 threads, you know. If they really offend you that much.

Who said I am offended. The moderators have informed me they want all discussion regarding a bill in one thread. I'm just passing that along and asking a question.

We will leave this open if all of the responses move to this topic.