HB 302/SB 472 - Owners/Guests/Tenants of Condos cannot be barred from Carrying

[Papa_Tiger]

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=SB472

Companion bill to

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB302

[RoyGBiv]

[jordanmills]

weak but better than it could be

[Flightmare]

So this would allow owners/tennents/guests to legally carry directly between their vehicle and their apartment/condo, without worrying about 30.06/30.07. That part in itself doesn't seem like much. HOWEVER...it also appears to state that landlords may NOT prohibit lawful possession of firearms. That section I like. I've heard rumors of some places prohibit residents from possessing firearms on the premises. This would prevent that. it would allow licensed carriers to go visit those people regardless of signage.

IANAL, but this seems like a good bill to me.

[KLB]

I like it, and being as narrow as it is, it might pass.

[RoyGBiv]

Companion Bill in the House is HB 302.

Received the following email today from TSRA... Alice Tripp.. Seeking testimony from people that have been impacted by no-guns signs/policies at their apartments or condos, etc. Please read below.

Support HB 302 by Rep. Dennis Paul (R-Houston)

We need witnesses with an LTC who have experienced being denied entrance to common areas of their condo or office space with their legally carried handgun by the posting of signage listed below. This denial could also include your customers, clients, or guests!

If you have a story to share

Step one: Please send me your written testimony, your impact story. This can serve as a handout and delivered to the committee prior to the hearing. Please include your full contact information and limit to one or two pages.

Next make a polite call or email to your State Rep. even if your State Representative is not "gun friendly". See the link below for their contact information. Urge all House members to Co-Author HB 302.

Finally are you willing to attend the hearing and testify before the committee, to share your impact statement in person, let me know! I'll put you on a contact list. We need you!

Please help
call or text 972-979-8616

Bill Explanation:

House Bill 302 by Rep. Dennis Paul protects the rights of owners or tenants of residential units or commercial spaces to lawfully possess firearms and ammunition in those locations, and to transport them directly en route between their vehicles and those residential units or commercial spaces.
Landlords and building owners can currently disenfranchise gun owners and effectively deny them the ability to protect themselves through contractual provisions prohibiting the possession or storage of firearms in apartment leases, condominium rules or commercial leases. Additionally, posting notice in common areas under Penal Code Section 30.05, 30.06 or 30.07 that prohibits firearms from being carried between personal vehicles and residential dwelling units or commercial offices forces gun owners to consider leaving their firearms in their cars or trucks, making them susceptible to theft. This method of restricting the carrying of handguns also conflicts with Penal Code Section 46.02, which allows a person to carry a handgun directly en route to a motor vehicle owned or controlled by the person.

<snip>

Alice Tripp
Legislative Director
TSRA-PAC

[Papa_Tiger]

HB 302 was favorably reported from committee today with substitutions.

The committee substitute changes the "Exception to the application of" 30.05/6/7 to a "Defense do prosecution". It also extends the defense to lessees of condominiums.

This bill has also picked up 63 Authors, Joint Authors and Co-Authors including Rep. Nevarez.

[Papa_Tiger]

Sent to the Governor yesterday.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB302

[powerboatr]

that will be good, my mother in law lives in an elderly people only apartment place and they have signs everywhere that all firearms are prohibited ..on grounds in apartments. its a joke.
they told the residents of management finds a firearm in the apartment they will be evicted...
nothing like announcing older folks are unarmed and defenseless. buns my rear.
this will e a good deal hopefully

[ELB]

If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

[Papa_Tiger]

If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

Pretty sure this only applies to condominium units where an individual owns a particular unit and has a share in ownership of the common areas, not apartment complexes which are wholly owned by a corporation or other entity. The condo management or association cannot legally forbid carrying for the owner, tenant or guests.

Again, I do not believe this applies to rental apartments where there is no individual ownership OR to assisted living facilities where the tenant is renting a unit from a corporation.

[denwego]

If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

Pretty sure this only applies to condominium units where an individual owns a particular unit and has a share in ownership of the common areas, not apartment complexes which are wholly owned by a corporation or other entity. The condo management or association cannot legally forbid carrying for the owner, tenant or guests.

Again, I do not believe this applies to rental apartments where there is no individual ownership OR to assisted living facilities where the tenant is renting a unit from a corporation.

It will. Chapter 92 governs normal rented apartments, and the bill above amends that chapter along with 81 (condos) and 94 (things like trailer park properties). It may not apply to assisted living facilities like a nursing home because there are deeper issues of tenancy in various medical statutes than just a lease, but a typical multifamily apartment complex will be affect. Not a day too soon if you ask me, either.

[Papa_Tiger]

If I read this correctly it applies to both unlicensed possession and carry as well as licensed carry. In other words someone who does not have a LTC may not be prohibited by management from having a firearm and ammo in his apartment, condo, manufactured housing, or carrying it back and forth between his apartment/condo/manuf house and his vehicle. And someone who does have an LTC and lives or is a guest in the apartment/condo/MH can carry as well.

That's good.

Pretty sure this only applies to condominium units where an individual owns a particular unit and has a share in ownership of the common areas, not apartment complexes which are wholly owned by a corporation or other entity. The condo management or association cannot legally forbid carrying for the owner, tenant or guests.

Again, I do not believe this applies to rental apartments where there is no individual ownership OR to assisted living facilities where the tenant is renting a unit from a corporation.

It will. Chapter 92 governs normal rented apartments, and the bill above amends that chapter along with 81 (condos) and 94 (things like trailer park properties). It may not apply to assisted living facilities like a nursing home because there are deeper issues of tenancy in various medical statutes than just a lease, but a typical multifamily apartment complex will be affect. Not a day too soon if you ask me, either.

I stand corrected! This is a fantastic bill!

[RoyGBiv]

Can someone explain the differences/reasoning between "Exception to the law..." and "Defense to prosecution"?

Seems that an "exception" to being charged with the crime would be much better than a "Defense" after being charged, but, maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks!

[ELB]

Can someone explain the differences/reasoning between "Exception to the law..." and "Defense to prosecution"?

Seems that an "exception" to being charged with the crime would be much better than a "Defense" after being charged, but, maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks!

Essentially as I understand it, if some action is an "exception" to an otherwise criminal act, that particular action is generally not illegal and you should not be arrested for that action. If you are, the DA has the burden of proof (must provide evidence) as part of the charges to show that the exception did not apply to you, and he must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the exception did not apply to you.

If some action is a "defense to prosecution" then that action is generally illegal, you may be arrested for that action, and you must provide evidence that the defense to prosecution applies to you so you can present the defense to the jury to create at least reasonable doubt that you actually violated the law.

For example, carrying a handgun is public is generally illegal. Defenses to prosecution include having an LTC, being a peace officer, and so forth.

An affirmative defense is similar to defense to prosecution, but your burden of proof is higher - you must convince the jury that the defense applies to you by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than just raise reasonable doubt.

Penal Code Title 1 Chapter 2 Burden of Proof

Sec. 2.02. EXCEPTION. (a) An exception to an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an exception to the application of . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception.

(c) This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective date of this code.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

(e) A ground of defense in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.



Sec. 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ."

(b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense.

(c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense.

(d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PE/htm/PE.2.htm