open carry bill filed

[K.Mooneyham]

Good to see it, although I would still conceal...... it would be nice in order to cover mishaps of uncovering.

Unintended "mishaps" are not illegal so legislation to OC will not have any impact on this.

Anygunanywhere

Its either Conceal all the way or not at all. There are still penalties for intentionally failing to conceal if you are not open carrying.

(a)AAA license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder ’s person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun, unless the license
holder is carrying the handgun in a shoulder or belt holster with at
least dual points of resistance.

"dual points of resistance"? Is that to mean some kind of retention holster?

[RottenApple]

IANAL, but it looks to me like 30.06 is still in full swing, but the wording has changed to include the un-concealed references - so, same signage but new wording. Which would render all current 30-06 signs null (like i said IANAL, and you can argue intent all day long) meaning if someone does not want my money, then they now have to spend even more of theirs... maybe i am missing something.

Here is the "written communication" section of 30.06 as it stands today:

(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: “Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a c oncealed handgun”; or

And here is the change in HB700:

(1)AAa card or other document on which is written language indicating that pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed or unconcealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, may not enter the property with a concealed handgun or with any handgun, whether concealed or not, as applicable;or

So under the current 30.06, the sign or card MUST have that exact language. Under the HB700 proposed 30.06, it must only indicate that you can't carry there per TPC 30.06. So, based on the black letter of the (proposed) law, a place could put up a gun buster sign that has "TPC 30.06" on it (in 1" contrasting letters, of course) and the place is now off-limits.

At least that's how I read it. IANAL.

[jmra]

And this my friends is why it takes so long to get anything done. In an attempt to please everyone you tick off everyone and lose everyone's support. Hope this thing gets amended early or dies an early death.

[Jasonw560]

Well, some things changed today, so I'll be home tomorrow with one of my twins who broke his arm today.

I can make the call to Rep. Lavender's office tomorrow.

[Wes]

So under the current 30.06, the sign or card MUST have that exact language. Under the HB700 proposed 30.06, it must only indicate that you can't carry there per TPC 30.06. So, based on the black letter of the (proposed) law, a place could put up a gun buster sign that has "TPC 30.06" on it (in 1" contrasting letters, of course) and the place is now off-limits.

At least that's how I read it. IANAL.

If this would be the new 30.06 sign that would be scary...i cant see how this would ever pass as is

[MeMelYup]

I like the concept of open carry but do not like the bill as written. Isn't who's the same thing we went through 2 years ago? This bill is riding on the platform of concealed carry and trying to change it to open carry. If we want open carry it must stand alone and not comprimise concealed carry in any way.

[Purplehood]

I like the concept of open carry but do not like the bill as written. Isn't who's the same thing we went through 2 years ago? This bill is riding on the platform of concealed carry and trying to change it to open carry. If we want open carry it must stand alone and not comprimise concealed carry in any way.

[cyphur]

I haven't analyzed this 39 page bill, but it guts TPC §30.06. It not only applies to both open-carry and concealed-carry, it repeals the statutorily-required verbiage that has been required since 1997. This specific language combined with the 1" block letter requirement are what makes a TPC §30.06 compliant sign the "big ugly sign" that property owners don't want to post. All that is necessary under HB700 is that a property owner post a sign referencing Tex. Gov't Code §411 and TPC 30.06. This could be a very small sign even though HB700 retains the 1" block letter requirement.

To say this is disappointing would be a gross understatement.

Chas.

Chas, I expect you would read the bill regardless, but your review & feedback on the bill is highly anticipated :)

[G.A. Heath]

I have spent the morning going over this thing and have not yet had time to look at the changes to the Penal code. My thoughts so far can be found in the Google doc link below. I have included what codes and sections the bill would change (I have not yet gotten to sections 37-42 of the bill) in the second page. My conclusions are strictly my own and have not yet been influenced by the changes that would potentially be made by the changes in the Penal code this bill proposes.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tUc ... E9VH4/edit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[johnferg69]

Just got off the phone with Lavenders office, spoke with a staffer named Bryan.
This is what I was told;
The 30.06 wording was removed because their is a question of the constitutionality of 2 different signs for carry even if its 2 different types of carry. If one type of carry is allowed it may be unconstitutional to stop another. This is something they what to clarify and fix as the bill progresses.

The "dual points of resistance" is in reportedly to help get backing from LE agencies. Bryan stated that this one complaint last session with the OC bill. LE is concerned about people who OC being unknowingly disarmed

The unintentional failure to conceal was left in because they want complete concealment or "dual points of resistance" OC. Not lackadaisical conceal carry. This is to help enforce the difference.

[MeMelYup]

This bill is confusing. Think about the questions we get on this forum from people that have completed the course and still don't understand. Would your neighbors understand this if they read the pamphlet and went through a 4 hour corse. I read the bill and am not sure exactly what it means in some things. If it does succeed we will see a lot more 30.06 signs.

[Redneck_Buddha]

This bill is confusing. Think about the questions we get on this forum from people that have completed the course and still don't understand. Would your neighbors understand this if they read the pamphlet and went through a 4 hour corse. I read the bill and am not sure exactly what it means in some things. If it does succeed we will see a lot more 30.06 signs.

Then we will see a lot more establishments not getting our business.

[johnferg69]

This bill is confusing. Think about the questions we get on this forum from people that have completed the course and still don't understand. Would your neighbors understand this if they read the pamphlet and went through a 4 hour corse. I read the bill and am not sure exactly what it means in some things. If it does succeed we will see a lot more 30.06 signs.

Then we will see a lot more establishments not getting our business.

[RoyGBiv]

The "dual points of resistance" is in reportedly to help get backing from LE agencies. Bryan stated that this one complaint last session with the OC bill. LE is concerned about people who OC being unknowingly disarmed

The unintentional failure to conceal was left in because they want complete concealment or "dual points of resistance" OC. Not lackadaisical conceal carry. This is to help enforce the difference.

So this would be ok:


And this is not?:


I think the bill is fixable....

I ask myself... Am I willing to trade 30.06 clarity for OC?
I answer myself.... Possibly yes.
I am certainly worried that we'll see a lot more gunbuster signs initially.
But when business is down and there is no bloodshed, will the signs come down?

There is, IMHO, a LOT of value in the non-carrying public "seeing" guns carried by law abiding people. I don't think folks realize how many people in TX have a permit (1 in 50 or so)... I think it would go a LONG way to winning the battle of hearts and minds to let non-carrying folks see guns in public being carried by good people.

Does this outweigh the 30.06 problem with this bill? I can see the argument on both sides.. and fixing it would be ideal, but, OC does more good than just simply making my pants fit better.

Mark this as TBD for me. If JohnFerg69's comments reflect the actual opinion of the sponsor, maybe the issues can be fixed.?