HB1911 Com Substitute

[Ruark]

....Keeps 06 and 07 as the (only) way to prohibit licensed/unlicensed carry under GC 411 authority, it still makes 30.05 irrelevant to handgun carry, and still allows for MPA, LEO, and employee carry past 30.06/7.

So businesses would have to change all their signs AGAIN???? Re-engrave the glass, etc....?

I'm sure 99% of them would just post these signs, instead of signs prohibiting only unlicensed carry. What a mess.

[bblhd672]

I am still beyond frustrated with the amount of political capital and points used up on this (in my mind) useless bill.

I threw a good amount of money at TSRA this session in the belief that they were going to push HB 560. I was proven a fool, there wasn't a single peep from them about it at all.

Never again.

I agree....if we end up with more restrictions on LTC's and where we are allowed to carry then I will strongly consider not renewing my TSRA membership.

Signed...Disillusioned.

[Liberty]

The one bit of good news for me in all of this. Is that If this passes, I don't have to worry about the legality of an exposed gun that I'm not wearing while driving. I often carry a holstered handgun in my doorside panel. If I open the door the gun could be exposed. I kept it covered with a cloth, now I won't worry about it so much while getting gas etc.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Committee substitute text for HB1911 released today.

I notice:
looks like a gunbuster bars unlicensed carry, and carry past that is a class C. Doesn't mention anything about sign requirements, hence I think this.
belt or shoulder holster changed to just "holster"

CSHB 1911 Final.pdf

Edited - I originally thought the bill added exemptions to 46.03 and 46.035 for license holders, that was my bad (it does not).

Where did you get the committee substitute? It's not on the legislative website yet.

Thanks,
Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.

We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.

I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.

I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.

At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.

Yes, HB560 most certainly should have been the flagship Bill!

Chas.

[allisji]

Sounds like we're getting ahead of ourselves here.

We need to wait and see what the legislature publishes and whether or not it includes new language for 30.06 signage.

the version in the OP didn't mention any new language for signage and only went up to Section 21.

eta: the section 24 language posted by jmorris looks like it must have come from the original text before it was revised in committee.

[ninjabread]

Where did you get the committee substitute? It's not on the legislative website yet.

Thanks,
Chas.

[ScottDLS]

The way I read it, the new verbiage for 06 & 07 prohibits both licensed and unlicensed carry. The text within brackets [] will be struck. Going to reduce the size of the sign.

SECTION 24. The heading to Section 30.06, Penal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY PERSON [LICENSE HOLDER] WITH [A]
CONCEALED HANDGUN.
SECTION 25. Sections 30.06(a), (c), (d), and (e), Penal
Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person [license holder] commits an offense if the
person [license holder]:
(1) carries a concealed handgun [under the authority
of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,] on property of
another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a
person [license holder] with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) ["License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
[(3)] "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by person [license holder] with [a] concealed
handgun), a person [licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law),] may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or

Where did you get this section 24? In the original post (OP pdf), I see it only going to Section 21?

[ninjabread]

[Medley86]

Maybe I missed it in the legal jargon, does 1911 modify TABC blue signs? If not while unlicensed carry will be legal there will be many locations which have to do nothing different than they do now to bar it.

[Captain Matt]

Maybe I missed it in the legal jargon, does 1911 modify TABC blue signs?

They haven't posted the text of the committee substitute yet so it's a Schrodinger cat.

[jmorris]

....

I'd agree with your assessment if the CSHB1911 didn't end with

SECTION 21. This Act takes effect September 1, 2017.

Section 24 ???

Well, shucks, and most emphatically, darn. Had both up and must have gotten confused flipping between tabs on my tablet.

[locke_n_load]

I got the text from one of the gun groups on facebook I follow, don't remember which one specifically (I follow more than a few haha). Apparently it may not have been final (really thought that it was). But Terry Holcomb in one of his posts did say that they weren't merging licensed/unlicensed restriction into 06/07 and that a gunbuster would prohibit unlicensed carry, and he has been working a lot on 1911 if I remember correctly.

[Scott Farkus]

Yes, HB560 most certainly should have been the flagship Bill!

Chas.

I know you probably can't answer but I'm going to ask anyway - why wasn't it?

[Lambda Force]

This session will go down as one of the least productive in decades as it relates to expansion of 2a rights.

Supermajority my hind end........

They will pass everything the Republican leadership wants passed. If you like what they pass, then vote Republican.