HB 2756 Open Carry bill reported favorably

[Charles L. Cotton]

During the testimony even Alice Tripp approved the bill in absentia, even though she did so without comments.

Sorry, but Alice was not approving the bill in any shape, form or fashion. She was there for Rep. Flynn's HB2613. She testified on HB2613, but not on HB2756. It should be noted that she didn't testify or enter a card against HB2756, so don't take my comments as indicating that the NRA or TSRA oppose HB2756. Neither organization has taken a position that bill and we are monitoring it in case anti-gun amendments are offered.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?

Had HB 2756 been left as originally drafted there would be no concern about 30.06. It was drafted as constitutional carry with no mention of 30.06 but certain "individuals" got their hands on it in League and changed it to licensed OC.

What and who are you talking about? MR Redneck at OpenCarry.org claims he wrote HB2756. Is that not correct? Please explain your conspiracy theory in greater detail.

I find your comment very interesting; could it be that the proponents of the bill are trying to distance themselves from their own creation?

Chas.

[redlin67]

During the testimony even Alice Tripp approved the bill in absentia, even though she did so without comments.

Sorry, but Alice was not approving the bill in any shape, form or fashion. She was there for Rep. Flynn's HB2613. She testified on HB2613, but not on HB2756. It should be noted that she didn't testify or enter a card against HB2756, so don't take my comments as indicating that the NRA or TSRA oppose HB2756. Neither organization has taken a position that bill and we are monitoring it in case anti-gun amendments are offered.

Chas.

I guess I need to go back and listen again.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Is there a companion bill in the senate? I didn't think so but I haven't been following the OC dark horse closely.

There's no Senate companion, but don't worry. I strongly suspect that Rep. Lavender would accept an amendment deleting the 30.06 provision as a friendly amendment. The bigger question is whether the full House will pass such an amendment, since the two sign situation will be thrust into the open. That said, HB2756 will not pass with the absurd 30.06 provision; you can take that to the bank.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

Here is a link to the Bill. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment to TPC §30.06 is in Section 34 of the Bill. It makes a 30.06 sign applicable to open-carry; in fact, it would be required to prohibit open or concealed carry. This provision creates a worst case scenario for CHL's. There was no reason whatsoever to do this. Had this provision not been included, then any "no guns" sign would have been enough to ban open-carry, but prohibiting concealed-carry would still require a 30.06 sign. As currently written, if HB2756 passes, any business wanting to ban open-carry will have to ban concealed-carry as well.

Chas.

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

Here is a link to the Bill. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment to TPC §30.06 is in Section 34 of the Bill. It makes a 30.06 sign applicable to open-carry; in fact, it would be required to prohibit open or concealed carry. This provision creates a worst case scenario for CHL's. There was no reason whatsoever to do this. Had this provision not been included, then any "no guns" sign would have been enough to ban open-carry, but prohibiting concealed-carry would still require a 30.06 sign. As currently written, if HB2756 passes, any business wanting to ban open-carry will have to ban concealed-carry as well.

Chas.

Thank you, kind sir!

[Bullwhip]

I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

Here is a link to the Bill. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment to TPC §30.06 is in Section 34 of the Bill. It makes a 30.06 sign applicable to open-carry; in fact, it would be required to prohibit open or concealed carry. This provision creates a worst case scenario for CHL's. There was no reason whatsoever to do this. Had this provision not been included, then any "no guns" sign would have been enough to ban open-carry, but prohibiting concealed-carry would still require a 30.06 sign. As currently written, if HB2756 passes, any business wanting to ban open-carry will have to ban concealed-carry as well.

Chas.

I'm no kind of legal guy, just a country mechanic. I don't see the problem with having one sign for concealed and open carry. Can you explain it for the bumpkins like me?

If I'm reading this bill right, it makes sure that open carry folks can't be busted for class a trespassing just because they don't see some little no guns signs on a convencience store window coverd with all kinds of other signs. I thought that was why we passed 30.06 in the first place, wasn't it? Why hang hte open carry folks out there to risk that kind of charge when they have CHLs too? Remember this bill is only for CHLs, do we want to burn fellow CHLers?

[hirundo82]

I'm no kind of legal guy, just a country mechanic. I don't see the problem with having one sign for concealed and open carry. Can you explain it for the bumpkins like me?

A concern of many around these parts is that legalizing open carry would lead to an explosion of valid signs, with property owners seeing people carrying on their property and finding out that the only way to prohibit it is with a sign in accordance with §30.06.

If §30.06 only applies to concealed carry, and open carry can be prohibited with just a "No Guns" sign, the proliferation of §30.06 signs could likely be avoided.

[RPB]

My opinion on how it "should have been done"
Really, there should be added to the Penal Code Section 30.07 for open carry

1) Then a business wanting to ban "concealed" (but allow open) will still post a 30.06 sign (Seriously, some "anti's want to know by armbands or whatever method, who is armed)

2) A business which allows concealed but prohibits open will post a 30.07 sign but no 30.06 sign

3) Any business wanting to prohibit both concealed and open needs to post 4 signs (2 English and 2 Spanish) for 30.06 and 30.07 about 3 feet by 4 feet tall each

I think that would be ideal; any business with 4 huge signs obviously wants to lose well over 500,000 customers PLUS their families business from their potential customer base.

But, that would have been more work than just using a word processor to search the codes for the word "Concealed" and strike it out everywhere..... However, sometimes it's worth putting forth a bit more effort when drafting legal documents and such ...Just my pinion ...

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

Here is a link to the Bill. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment to TPC §30.06 is in Section 34 of the Bill. It makes a 30.06 sign applicable to open-carry; in fact, it would be required to prohibit open or concealed carry. This provision creates a worst case scenario for CHL's. There was no reason whatsoever to do this. Had this provision not been included, then any "no guns" sign would have been enough to ban open-carry, but prohibiting concealed-carry would still require a 30.06 sign. As currently written, if HB2756 passes, any business wanting to ban open-carry will have to ban concealed-carry as well.

Chas.

I'm no kind of legal guy, just a country mechanic. I don't see the problem with having one sign for concealed and open carry. Can you explain it for the bumpkins like me?

Come on Bullwhip, you've been around here a while and you've seen, and I think took part in, a lot of threads on open-carry. You know exactly what this is about.

If I'm reading this bill right, it makes sure that open carry folks can't be busted for class a trespassing just because they don't see some little no guns signs on a convencience store window coverd with all kinds of other signs. I thought that was why we passed 30.06 in the first place, wasn't it?

That's not why we created TPC §30.06 at all. We passed HB2909 in 1997 to stop the epidemic of generic "no guns" decals that were popping up all over the State and continued to do so until HB2909 went into on Sept. 1, 1997. When you read open-carry supporters who claim the "no guns" signs came down before then it's simply not true, not even close.

HB2909 created what some of referred to as the "big ugly sign" requirement to exclude armed CHL's. The excuse we gave is to make sure no CHL inadvertently trespassed because they didn't see the sign. We could hardly say, "we want this sign requirement because it is big and ugly and no one will want to put it up on their property."

Why hang hte open carry folks out there to risk that kind of charge when they have CHLs too? Remember this bill is only for CHLs, do we want to burn fellow CHLers?

Fellow CHL'ers my foot. The hostility of open-carry supporters to CHL's who hold real world concerns about a 30.06 backlash based upon recent history in Texas is absolute proof that your "they're one of us" argument has no merit. I know that some open-carry supporters are much better statesmen and don't take the scorched earth approach, but unfortunately they seem to be very few in number and are drowned out by the bomb throwers.

More importantly, I don't see it as hanging "open carry folks out there to a risk." In my view, it's just the opposite. Any open-carry proponents who support the current amendment to TPC §30.06 are willing to hang 461,000+ CHL's out to dry. I find it ironic that for two years now, open-carry supporters have been loudly proclaiming that all the fears about more 30.06 signs are groundless because business owners aren't going to react negatively to open-carry. Yet the self-proclaimed author of the bill intentionally gave open-carry the protection of the 30.06 "big ugly sign" to the extreme prejudice of hundreds of thousands of CHLs. If he/they really believed there would be no backlash, why amend 30.06? I know why, they fear a backlash regardless what they claim otherwise.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

My opinion on how it "should have been done"
Really, there should be added to the Penal Code Section 30.07 for open carry

Then a business wanting to ban "concealed" (but allow open) will still post a 30.06 sign (Seriously, some "anti's want to know by armbands or whatever method, who is armed)
A business which allows concealed but prohibits open will post a 30.07 sign but no 30.06 sign
Any business wanting to prohibit both concealed and open needs to post 4 signs (2 English and 2 Spanish) for 30.06 and 30.07 about 3 feet by 4 feet tall each

I think that would be ideal; any business with 4 huge signs obviously wants to lose well over 500,000 customers PLUS their families business from their potential customer base.

.

Operationally for gun owners, that would have been great. However, the Legislature would never pass a bill that made two "big ugly signs" a requirement to keep out all guns. That's simply too much of a burden on property owners.

The best we can hope for is to leave TPC §30.06 applicable to CHL's and hope we can convince the legislature that requiring a business owner to post a small generic "no guns" decal or sign on the door isn't much of a burden

Chas.

[Jasonw560]

I'm just a goofy paramedic, but let me get this straight....if the 30.06 provision was left alone, then OC ccouldn't carry past a gunbuster or other generic no guns sign unless they untucked their shirt, but if there was a valid 30.06 sign, they would have to tuck their shirts in, correct? If they carried in an OWB.

Just trying to untangle it early in the morning.

[hirundo82]

I'm just a goofy paramedic, but let me get this straight....if the 30.06 provision was left alone, then OC ccouldn't carry past a gunbuster or other generic no guns sign unless they untucked their shirt, but if there was a valid 30.06 sign, they would have to tuck their shirts in, correct? If they carried in an OWB.

Just trying to untangle it early in the morning.

Correct, because as written now §30.06 only applies to concealed handguns:

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

If the an open carry bill were to pass without the change to §30.06, any sign would be sufficient to prohibit open carry. That's the way it was for concealed carry before §30.06 was enacted.

[jimlongley]

So, if there was 30.06 sign, but not a gun busters sign, OC would be OK but not CC?