Although pre-filing of bills is allowed, the vast majority of bills are not filed until after the session begins. Only two pro-gun bills were pre-filed, one that repeals the requirement to show a CHL when asked for ID and one to amend the statute that the NICS people are using to prohibit Texans from buying long guns in non-contiguous states. So the lack of a pre-filed bill should not be a cause for concern for people who support open-carry.
I'm sure the motive for posting this message on OpenCarry.org is not the lack of a pre-filed bill, but the lack of a bill sponsor or a bill at all. Otherwise, they wouldn't be making a blanket request for any Representative or any Senator to sponsor one and then refer them to the one a Virginia law student wrote for OpenCarry.org. The lack of a bill or a sponsor obviously is a matter of concern to open-carry supporters.
We have dozens of threads and hundreds of posts on whether Texas should allow open-carry and this post/thread is not going to be another one. I am posting this only to address the wording and scope of the proposed bill, so please don't turn this into yet another pro/con debate on open carry. I am addressing only the method being used, not the goal they are trying to achieve.
I recommend not promoting the model bill that OpenCarry.org offers on its website. It goes much further than is necessary to legalize open-carry. I understand that OpenCarry.org wants unlicensed open-carry, but even those who support open-carry are divided on the licensed v. unlicensed issue. Regardless of the approach taken, it would be much easier and safer to approach a bill by making minimal changes to the Penal Code to achieve the goal. For example, to legalize unlicensed open-carry, the only thing that needs to be done is to insert the word "concealed" in front of "handgun" in TPC §46.02(a). If the goal is to legalize licensed open-carry, then leave TPC §46.02 alone and simply repeal TPC §46.035(a) that requires concealment.
By making the massive changes as set out in the OpenCarry.org model bill, i.e. repeal of TPC §46.035 and moving it to §46.02, the entire subject matter of §46.035 dealing off-limits areas are germane to the bill. This opens those subjects up to amendments that would not otherwise be germane if the only changes were those I set out above. As currently written, the OpenCarry.org bill is an anti-gunner's dream! It allows them to attach a wide variety of anti-gun, off-limits, provisions. If that were to happen, the bill sponsor would be in a position of having to "pull down" (a/k/a kill) his/her own bill, or let anti-gun provisions remain in the bill for floor debate and possible passage. No responsible pro-gun elected official would take that risk. I know, I've been in just that situation -- watching our own bill killed because of an amendment.
If any of our members have any input with OpenCarry.org, it would be to their benefit not to promote the bill they have posted. I have no doubt that the law student who drafted the bill was not aware of Texas' stringent germane rule and that his/her proposed bill could have such dire consequences. I also understand that this law student was probably trying to consolidate the various provisions under one subsection, but this is not the way to go about recodification. When recodifications are done, they are done with that explicit goal and they include language like "this recodification is not intended to make substantive changes to any existing statute or laws." This makes it clear that the subject matter addressed is not open for amendment, and that the bill is solely intended to rewrite the code to be more readable and "user friendly." If amendments are offered that would have a substantive effect, they are ruled "out of order" and are not added to the bill.
Again, I am not opposing open-carry as a concept (not in this thread anyway); I am expressing a very strong concern for the specific bill that OpenCarry.org is recommending. It would be in everyone's best interest for this bill to be withdrawn and a very narrow substitute offered. I am not suggesting that supporters of open-carry not answer OpenCarry.org's call to action, if that is what you believe is appropriate. However, I think it would be prudent to promote a much narrower bill.
Rodbender, based upon your posts here and on OpenCarry.org, it appears you may be in a position to pass these concerns along to OpenCarry.org so they will be received as constructive. If I made these same comments, I'm sure they would not be perceived as constructive.
Chas.
