HB1911 Com Substitute

[locke_n_load]

...
To date, I am not aware of any LEOs being charged with 30.06/30.07 when carrying on or off duty. It is a non-issue and carve outs are getting old, fast. LTC holders have a proven track record of being more law abiding than police, yet do not get the same carve outs. No more carve outs for cops, unless citizens get them too.

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think cops need a carve out, for the same reason that license holders won't need a carve out under the proposed language. You will not be carrying under the authority of your LTC (if HB1911) passes, because you won't need a LTC to be exempt from 46.02.

On the subject of LEO's charged with 30.06/7....well in 20 years, no CHL/LTC or LEO has ever been convicted of 30.06 or 30.05 (as it relates to handgun carry either).

There was the Section 24 of the Bill posted previously in this thread, that changed the definition of carrying under authority of GC 411 to both licensees and non licensees, but that is not apparently in the latest version.

Well what I really want is LTC holders exempt from 46.03 (carve out), cops don't really need any other exemptions. I agree with your statements about carrying under different authorities - if you can legally carry under one authority, it doesn't matter if you don't meet other legal authorities to do so.

[Kkpsiknl]

I just read the substitute version, and then read the analysis of the difference between the original and the cs. My head hurts and I still don't understand.

[tbrown]

Good cops protect the rights of the people. Evil cops trample the rights of the people.

We knew which Chief Acevedo was long before he left Austin.

Houston Police Chief Mr. Acevedo just retweeted this:

[gljjt]

My head just exploded...

[locke_n_load]

I just read the substitute version, and then read the analysis of the difference between the original and the cs. My head hurts and I still don't understand.

Bill Currently (and with one final amendment):
allows unlicensed carry by individuals with no felonies who can legally buy and possess a firearm
ban of unlicensed carry is done via a gunbuster sign
carrying after being notified via sign that unlicensed carry is prohibited is a class C, given verbal notice and fails to depart is class A
open carry just requires a "holster" ("belt or shoulder holster" requirement removed)
TABC blue "unlicensed possession of a firearm" for grocery stores that sell alcohol being removed from the code.

And currently there is some debate that having an LTC would pretty much make 06/07 void to license holders because they do not have to carry under the authority of their LTCs because they meet the requirements to carry without, but 30.05 trespassing just for no handguns would not apply either, so they would technically not be breaking the law no matter what (even if all) trespassing sign is posted.

Scott can let me know if I got that last paragraph right.

[ScottDLS]

I just read the substitute version, and then read the analysis of the difference between the original and the cs. My head hurts and I still don't understand.

Bill Currently (and with one final amendment):
allows unlicensed carry by individuals with no felonies who can legally buy and possess a firearm
ban of unlicensed carry is done via a gunbuster sign
carrying after being notified via sign that unlicensed carry is prohibited is a class C, given verbal notice and fails to depart is class A
open carry just requires a "holster" ("belt or shoulder holster" requirement removed)
TABC blue "unlicensed possession of a firearm" for grocery stores that sell alcohol being removed from the code.

And currently there is some debate that having an LTC would pretty much make 06/07 void to license holders because they do not have to carry under the authority of their LTCs because they meet the requirements to carry without, but 30.05 trespassing just for no handguns would not apply either, so they would technically not be breaking the law no matter what (even if all) trespassing sign is posted.

Scott can let me know if I got that last paragraph right.

Yeah looks like the only changes are removing the additional requirements of LTC (no misdemeanors for 5 years, late taxes, etc.) for unlicensed carry. AND, removing the TABC blue sign, which would be silly to still require posting, since it would be incorrect.

My guess with the interactions between 30.05...6...and 7 being pretty muddy, we'll see a ton of 30.06/7 signs go up, with business not recognizing that those are supposed to be for only license holders. You could make an argument that 30.06/7 is also notice under 30.05, which would be really funny because per the letter of the law it would still NOT apply to LTC, which is what it was written for anyway....

Based on my reading of the proposed law and the class C penalty, if this passes, I will adopt a "Clinton Era" policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, with respect to 30.06/7 signs. Either that or until they are held to apply to Peace Officers, Special Investigators, and Level 3 security officers.

[tx85]

Article: Are Texas lawmakers ready to let gun owners carry without licenses?

The bill has generated so much concern with some critics — including Texas Gun Sense, Moms Demand Action and The Voice of Texas Law Enforcement — that they have joined together to hold a press conference Monday to outline some of their concerns.

[AJSully421]

Casp625,

You are reading an old version. The most recent version retains the "license holder" language for 06/07.

I made this same mistake when reading the committee substitute.

[Ruark]

I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

[ScottDLS]

I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

And if it has a gunbuster AND a 30.06/7 you can carry under the authority of 1911, or your badge, or your Level III PPO authorization and the 30.05 (gunbuster) won't apply because you HAVE a LTC (defense or exception to 30.05), but you're not carrying under its authority (30.06/7 doesn't apply). How about THAT?

[Ruark]

I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

And if it has a gunbuster AND a 30.06/7 you can carry under the authority of 1911, or your badge, or your Level III PPO authorization and the 30.05 (gunbuster) won't apply because you HAVE a LTC (defense or exception to 30.05), but you're not carrying under its authority (30.06/7 doesn't apply). How about THAT?

Uh...... what?

[ScottDLS]

I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

And if it has a gunbuster AND a 30.06/7 you can carry under the authority of 1911, or your badge, or your Level III PPO authorization and the 30.05 (gunbuster) won't apply because you HAVE a LTC (defense or exception to 30.05), but you're not carrying under its authority (30.06/7 doesn't apply). How about THAT?

Uh...... what?

If the law is passed as worded, the way I read it 30.06/7 only applies when carrying under the authority of GC 411. Since you don't need that authority to carry under HB 1911 (unlicensed carry) 30.06/7 does not apply to you. You have a DEFENSE to 30.05 (gunbbuster) if you HAVE a LTC even though you're not carrying under its authority. So neither applies.

If this was not true, then 30.06/7 would apply to cops carrying under authority of their badge if they happened to also have a LTC. And 46.035 would apply to homeowners carrying in their house (no holster) if they happened to have a LTC.

[ELB]

Just starting to wade into the verbiage of HB1911 now that the Committee Substitute is out.

I see language removing the requirement for signs at retailers who sell alcohol not for consumption on the premises, i.e. the Blue Sign I guess.

The sign says it is illegal to carry a weapon on the premises without a license.

Does removal of the requirement for a sign also remove the law against carrying a weapon on the premises?

I don't see language doing that (and am not sure where that language is anyway). Usually there is a law that says "X is illegal" and a separate law requiring a sign telling you that "X is illegal." So removing the requirement for the sign doesn't mean "X" is not illegal, it just means there doesn't have to be a sign. Kind of like when the 51% rule meant you were committing a felony if you carried in a bar even if there wasn't a 51% sign.

Hmm. Maybe it is the last line of 46.02?:

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

[ScottDLS]

The language is in 46.15 where it says that if you qualify to unlicensed carry you have an exception (defense) to 46.02 which is what makes it illegal to carry in a place that sells alcohol...

[ELB]

The language is in 46.15 where it says that if you qualify to unlicensed carry you have an exception (defense) to 46.02 which is what makes it illegal to carry in a place that sells alcohol...

Just caught on to that when you were posting, thanks.