HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[mojo84]

Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

There is no requirement that you actually see the sign. As long as the sign is posted, you have received effective notice.

What if one enters through one of the three doors without a sign?

What if the sign is posted behind a counter and not conspicuous from the door in which one enters.

I do not believe just posting a sign is effective notice. I also do not believe it is acceptable to go out of one's way to not see a sign they know or may suspect is there.

[rbwhatever1]

If a sign is not "conspicuously posted" one should be able to enter and leave without issue. I only look at the entrance doors and walls. If it isn't there I'm not obligated to go looking for it behind a stack of boxes or underneath sale sign's somebody may have stuck on top of it. Of course no one will know I'm carrying anyway...

[CJD]

Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

There is no requirement that you actually see the sign. As long as the sign is posted, you have received effective notice.

What if one enters through one of the three doors without a sign?

What if the sign is posted behind a counter and not conspicuous from the door in which one enters.

I do not believe just posting a sign is effective notice. I also do not believe it is acceptable to go out of one's way to not see a sign they know or may suspect is there.

Sorry, I meant if it is posted according to code. If it is conspicuously posted at one door, but I go in the other, I definitely wouldn't want to be the test case on that one.

[Srnewby]

A slightly late but heartfelt thanks to Charles and all the others who have worked behind the scenes to bring the OC legislation to the point where we are today--almost to completion.

[Ruark]

I would postulate that some of this is similar to your responsibility as a driver to see road signs. You're responsible for seeing that stop sign or speed limit sign; it's part of your required skill as a driver to continually scan for and be alert to signage. You were taught about signs as part of your CHL training, and have a similar responsibility to be alert for them when entering a place of business. You can't say "oh, I was chatting on my cell phone and didn't see it." Again, I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking that could be the case from a legal standpoint.

[jmra]

I would postulate that some of this is similar to your responsibility as a driver to see road signs. You're responsible for seeing that stop sign or speed limit sign; it's part of your required skill as a driver to continually scan for and be alert to signage. You were taught about signs as part of your CHL training, and have a similar responsibility to be alert for them when entering a place of business. You can't say "oh, I was chatting on my cell phone and didn't see it." Again, I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking that could be the case from a legal standpoint.

The problem with this analogy is that you know exactly where to look for the road signs. The road signs are exactly where you would expect them to be because of the standards established by the highway department. The same standards do not exist in regards to placement of 30.06 signs.

[v7a]

Probably my favorite moment in yesterday's debate:
(when the Chair got tired of Stickland's whining)

[sugar land dave]

HB910 Second reading replay:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ruark]

Probably my favorite moment in yesterday's debate:
(when the Chair got tired of Stickland's whining)

[ Image ]

I wonder if that hammer ever breaks....

[mojo84]

I would postulate that some of this is similar to your responsibility as a driver to see road signs. You're responsible for seeing that stop sign or speed limit sign; it's part of your required skill as a driver to continually scan for and be alert to signage. You were taught about signs as part of your CHL training, and have a similar responsibility to be alert for them when entering a place of business. You can't say "oh, I was chatting on my cell phone and didn't see it." Again, I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking that could be the case from a legal standpoint.

I believe it would be a valid defense if one could show that an overgrown tree blocked a speed limit sign and one was not familiar with the area. Signage is not always conspicuously placed and it's not our responsibility to go out of our way to seek it out.

Postulation notwithstanding, common sense and reasonableness usually play a part in such circumstances.

[K5GU]

Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original 1 mil population was amendment #8 which was tabled after #9 (750K pop.) was adopted, so #9 was ineffectual.

[mojo84]

Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original 1 mil population was amendment #8 which was tabled after #9 (750K pop.) was adopted, so #9 was ineffectual.

My sincere apologies for the typo where I used 9 instead of 8. Bottom line, my comment stands and neither will have an effect on the bill.

[K5GU]

Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original 1 mil population was amendment #8 which was tabled after #9 (750K pop.) was adopted, so #9 was ineffectual.

Wait! What about the amendment to the amendment that amended the amendment? (grin)

[mojo84]

Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original 1 mil population was amendment #8 which was tabled after #9 (750K pop.) was adopted, so #9 was ineffectual.

Wait! What about the amendment to the amendment that amended the amendment? (grin)

You're wearing me out smalls.

[G.A. Heath]

Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?