HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

[Papa_Tiger]

It’s Friday the 28th. What happens if the Governor doesn’t sign by Monday.

It's my understanding that if the Governor doesn't VETO, it becomes law on 01 SEP 2021.

Just the same. I don't understand why he has not signed it yet. Is it some kind of political game? Let it pass and then claim he didn't sign it if confronted by leftist scum?

He hasn't received it from the House and Senate yet. He can't sign something he hasn't received.

[RoyGBiv]

Looking at the enrolled bill, the only changes to 30.06/07 are these... (same for both)
These changes move this language from 46.035, which is going away.

SECTION 18. Section 30.06(c)(2), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(2)"License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.03.

SECTION19. Section 30.06(e), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(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.

The new bill does keep the old 46.035 language, just moves it to 46.03

46.03
(3)"License holder" means a person licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

So... I agree with Charles (big surprise ) that 30.06/07 will still prohibit LTC's...

The question remains as to whether not posting 30.05 would allow an LTC to still carry, since not posting 30.05 would allow any non-prohibited person to carry.

[ScottDLS]

So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

[K.Mooneyham]

So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.

[ScottDLS]

So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.

How about peace officers off duty? Or retired LEO's under LEOSA...who happen to have a LTC? Or I think you saw it in your suggestion (what if you have been issued a LTC, but purposely don't have it on you?). How will the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of 30.06 have been violated (i.e. you are carrying under the authority of LTC), when you don't need that authority to carry. Is there going to be a mechanism to turn in your LTC if you don't want it anymore because it illogically prevents you from legally carrying where you could otherwise? What if you have an Arizona license and don't have it on you? How is the prosecutor wrongly charging you for 30.06 going to know that you had a license at all?

[K.Mooneyham]

So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.

How about peace officers off duty? Or retired LEO's under LEOSA...who happen to have a LTC? Or I think you saw it in your suggestion (what if you have been issued a LTC, but purposely don't have it on you?). How will the prosecution prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of 30.06 have been violated (i.e. you are carrying under the authority of LTC), when you don't need that authority to carry. Is there going to be a mechanism to turn in your LTC if you don't want it anymore because it illogically prevents you from legally carrying where you could otherwise? What if you have an Arizona license and don't have it on you? How is the prosecutor wrongly charging you for 30.06 going to know that you had a license at all?

I don't know the answers to any of those, I am just as confused as anyone else. I would like to think there is a intent to the law, but it seems that the letter of the law doesn't quite match the intent. I fear that unscrupulous prosecutors in specific places will take advantage of gray areas between the intent and the letter, and it will either require a "cleanup" bill to fix these things, or at least a letter from the AG's office in the interim.

[powerboatr]

So is there a thread where one could find out everything about this new constitutional carry? I saw a map and Texas was listed as a constitutional carry state.

Does it affect LTC or me at all?

Did it really pass?

What are the new rules?

I assume there are rules?

I didn't pay much attention, as I thought it probably would not happen, but I understand it really happened. So now I'm interested.

Were there any changes for LTC folks? Carry in bars? Signs are only for non LTC?

My assumption is that nothing really changed except a criminal will have to be convicted of his first crime before he can't carry a gun? So on his arrests, he isn't charged with a gun crime, until he is convicted for the first time?

Or were there some cool things I need to know?

I plan on keeping my LTC regardless as it is very helpful after boating accidents.

Well, it's still awaiting the Governors action, but likely that's just a formality. On this thread many of us have been trying to understand the new rules (aka law). I guess the best place to start is to read the enrolled version of the bill itself.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.

thanks i bookmarked and saved a copy to my computer. made my head hurt after 30 minutes. it will take some time to digest it

[ScottDLS]

....

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.

thanks i bookmarked and saved a copy to my computer. made my head hurt after 30 minutes. it will take some time to digest it

I think it will be a little easier when the LTC-16 2021/22 comes out (assuming they still keep printing it). The hard part until then is to read the existing statutes and then going back to the bill and see what they change/replace.

[powerboatr]

....

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.

thanks i bookmarked and saved a copy to my computer. made my head hurt after 30 minutes. it will take some time to digest it

I think it will be a little easier when the LTC-16 2021/22 comes out (assuming they still keep printing it). The hard part until then is to read the existing statutes and then going back to the bill and see what they change/replace.

the hyper links embedded in the online version made that a bit easier, but still Its a whole lot to absorb. i will read it at least 100 more times and make notes and cheat sheets to help explain it to my better half.
but according to my new neighbor that is building a house over from us, this new law will let him carry open everywhere and i mean everywhere so he tells me. .

[Greybeard]

"I think it will be a little easier when the LTC-16 2021/22 comes out (assuming they still keep printing it)."

I'll be surprised if they get it done and available by January 2022.

[TxRVer]

....

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.

thanks i bookmarked and saved a copy to my computer. made my head hurt after 30 minutes. it will take some time to digest it

I think it will be a little easier when the LTC-16 2021/22 comes out (assuming they still keep printing it). The hard part until then is to read the existing statutes and then going back to the bill and see what they change/replace.

the hyper links embedded in the online version made that a bit easier, but still Its a whole lot to absorb. i will read it at least 100 more times and make notes and cheat sheets to help explain it to my better half.
but according to my new neighbor that is building a house over from us, this new law will let him carry open everywhere and i mean everywhere so he tells me. .

If you only watch the local news for your information, you could come away with that misconception. They only tell you that unlicensed/untrained people will be able to carry.

[03Lightningrocks]

....

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ll=HB1927

There is also some hearing information and legislative briefs from when the bill was being debated there as well.

thanks i bookmarked and saved a copy to my computer. made my head hurt after 30 minutes. it will take some time to digest it

I think it will be a little easier when the LTC-16 2021/22 comes out (assuming they still keep printing it). The hard part until then is to read the existing statutes and then going back to the bill and see what they change/replace.

the hyper links embedded in the online version made that a bit easier, but still Its a whole lot to absorb. i will read it at least 100 more times and make notes and cheat sheets to help explain it to my better half.
but according to my new neighbor that is building a house over from us, this new law will let him carry open everywhere and i mean everywhere so he tells me. .

If you only watch the local news for your information, you could come away with that misconception. They only tell you that unlicensed/untrained people will be able to carry.

The neighbor is obviously incorrect but it has made me wonder how many others will operate under the same misconception. I can definitely imagine people reading or hearing it is legal to carry and not being aware that there are places it is not allowed. Kind of like the folks who proclaim the governor said no more mask mandates while standing in a private business refusing to follow their guidelines to enter.

[Soccerdad1995]

So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.

I think this is precisely the point. If an LTC holder carries past 30.06 / 30.07 signage, it is OK because he is carrying under a different authority as well. Namely the authority provided by 30.05 to all non-prohibited persons to carry a gun. This is assuming that there are no compliant 30.05 signs posted.

[ScottDLS]

So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.

I think this is precisely the point. If an LTC holder carries past 30.06 / 30.07 signage, it is OK because he is carrying under a different authority as well. Namely the authority provided by 30.05 to all non-prohibited persons to carry a gun. This is assuming that there are no compliant 30.05 signs posted.

I would make one slight change to this:

Namely the authority provided by 46.02 to all non-prohibited persons to carry a gun.

[TheSoundGrip]

In more attempts to stoke the flames and scare opponents into thinking the world is going to end now that HB1927 has passed, KSAT in San Antonio just posted this article about the bill.

Is it not legal to carry at The Alamo? I thought that was state property, not federal?

Also National Parks, I’m pretty sure it’s been said you can carry in certain places there, just not buildings or something like that?

Also they said in the article you can’t carry in any government buildings at all, which isn’t true for state and municipal buildings except for certain prohibited areas. No mention of this. Just a broad statement.

Im convinced all these media outlets are now purposely trying to misstate information not only to continue to scare people opposed to constitutional carry, but also now people who will want to exercise their rights into making them think it will be too much of a hassle.

Here’s the article: https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/06 ... eCBTu33wls

Here’s the Facebook post, the comments are comical: