SB17 OC Bill On Intent Calendar for 3-16-2015.

[TVGuy]

Okay, I did not get to hear any of the discussions yesterday and now I am confused (not unusual though).
As I understand it, the amendment to require a retention holster was tabled. However there was an amendment that requires additional training added to new classes on proper retention of firearms. Is this is correct? and if so, WHY the additional class requirements?
Sounds like typical bureaucracy to me.

No additional time, just adding info about retention and why it may be wise to use. Not a big deal.

[TVGuy]

When will today's vote be?

[joelamosobadiah]

When will today's vote be?

Looks like 11:00 AM

[tlt]

Okay, I did not get to hear any of the discussions yesterday and now I am confused (not unusual though).
As I understand it, the amendment to require a retention holster was tabled. However there was an amendment that requires additional training added to new classes on proper retention of firearms. Is this is correct? and if so, WHY the additional class requirements?
Sounds like typical bureaucracy to me.

As Chas. mentioned, it will be simple to include a weapons retention familiarization in future CHL classes. Existing license holders are most likely grandfathered in.

[TVGuy]

When will today's vote be?

Looks like 11:00 AM

Thank you!

[AJSully421]

Okay, I did not get to hear any of the discussions yesterday and now I am confused (not unusual though).
As I understand it, the amendment to require a retention holster was tabled. However there was an amendment that requires additional training added to new classes on proper retention of firearms. Is this is correct? and if so, WHY the additional class requirements?
Sounds like typical bureaucracy to me.

As Chas. mentioned, it will be simple to include a weapons retention familiarization in future CHL classes. Existing license holders are most likely grandfathered in.

No ex-post facto law. Worst case, at renewal they would make you read something online and type your name twice to certify that you read and will comply with the change in the law and agree to try extra hard to retain your OC firearm.. lest you get murdered with your own gun.

Best, and most likely, case is that you won't have to do squat, and will just get a great new looking license at your next renewal that will be a License to Carry a Handgun. So it will be a LCH... not a CHL.

[Beiruty]

Carry(ing) a handgun License is still CHL, no?

[tlt]

I would see no reason to change the CHL terminology to something else, doing so will create confusion. The acronym could be "Conceal Handgun License" or "Carry Handgun License"

[AJSully421]

Carry(ing) a handgun License is still CHL, no?

The physical card will likely say "License to Carry a Handgun" across the top... we may as well get used to saying LCH.

[mojo84]

Provided SB 17 gets out of the house and to the governor.

[CoffeeNut]

Provided SB 17 gets out of the house and to the governor.

Some of the comments coming from committee members don't have me confident that it'll easily pass the house. Those for these bills haven't been stellar communicators either.

[AJSully421]

I would see no reason to change the CHL terminology to something else, doing so will create confusion. The acronym could be "Conceal Handgun License" or "Carry Handgun License"

I agree. But if the DPS starts referring to it as something else like a LCH... it does not matter what you or I think, that is what instructors and new folks will start saying and that's that.

[mikeloc]

The video is up, but they're just milling around.

[mikeloc]

Must be like church. No one gets there until the service starts.

[DocV]

I am more concerned with Sen Huffman's amendment which purports to synch SB17 with SB11, in the event both are enacted.

I think Sen. West(?) offered an amendment to Sen Huffman's amendment. Something about adding "knowingly" to "intentionally", or vice-versa.

Charlie indicated that this would make it easier to prosecute.

...

The phrase is

and intentionally or knowingly displays the handgun in plain view of another person

My inner logician says the wording is redundant as one who 'knowingly' displays a handgun does so intentionally and one who 'intentionally' displays a handgun does so knowingly. However, I realized legislators dance to a different order of logic after I watched the debate on the floor

If the terms "intentionally" and "knowingly" were not defined in the Code, then I would agree. However, they are defined. There's a reason SB60 (1995) was drafted such that the culpable mental state required to convict a person of failure to conceal was intentional conduct. It's much easier for the state to prove a person acted "knowingly" because of the difference in the statutory definitions.

Chas.

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

Thank you Charles! With those definitions in hand my understanding is that, according to code, "deliberately" is , what I would term, weaker than "intentionally". As in:

DA: DocV, did you eat too many donuts to intentionally gain weight?
DocV: No.
DA: DocV, were you aware that eating too many donuts could make you gain weight?
DocV: Well, yes, I was.
Jury: Guilty as charged!

edit: grammar