TexasCHLforum.com

txmatt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:54 pm I'm still not quite wrapping my head around the implications of HB 1927. Can anyone help clarify:

1. Does this mean that an LTC holder would be prohibited from carrying in an establishment with legal 30.06/30.07 signage, but someone with no license would be allowed to carry there?

2. Is there an equivalent sign giving legal notice for prohibiting people without an LTC from entering a building with a handgun?


I hope that constitutional carry would not lead to a situation where someone with a license could carry in fewer places than someone without. Also it would be undesirable for businesses to start posting 30.06 signs if that was what they thought they had to do to prohibit unlicensed people from carrying. I thought open carry was handled pretty well by creating a separate sign, would hope the same would be done here.

Answering question 2 first - In the current amended version of HB 1927 there is no legally defined sign for preventing unlicensed handgun carriers from entering a building.

To answer question 2: In my opinion (which is worth what you have paid for it), based off of the legal definition of notification required for trespass provided in TPC 30.05 which includes:

TPC 30.05 (b)(2)(C) wrote:a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

As well as the Dan Morales AG opinion prior to the creation of the 30.06 statute, I believe that many of the most commonly used 30.06/7 signs with a gun-buster logo would serve as a trigger for criminal trespass charges. Additionally, in many respects it will be much easier to prohibit unlicensed carry as any "Weapons Prohibited" sign likely to come to the attention of intruders could also serve as notice. Now keep in mind that much like for LTC holders and 30.06/7, any trespass violation will be a class C misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $200 unless they are asked to depart and then do not. If they promptly depart, they have a defense to prosecution.

In practice, there will likely be very few places that an unlicensed person could carry that a licensed person could not.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:00 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:17 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:48 am This may have already been answered but I can't find it. If a non licensed person is open carrying but is wearing a jacket that covers it, is this considered concealed? How would this person address this issue in the winter? Wear it over the jacket?

Either you have a license or you don't and either you can see the handgun or you can't. If you can see the handgun it is being openly carried, if you can't see the handgun, it is concealed.

Per my reading of the HB 1927, open carry applies to both licensed and unlicensed individuals with the addition of 46.02 (a-5)

HB 1927 - 46.02 (a-5) wrote:A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.

In other words, holstered handguns are OK. Un-holstered in public is an offense.

I'm sorry. I was not real clear with my question. I was referring to what would be the rule if constitutional carry is passed. I am thinking a person open carrying with no LTC would be breaking the constitutional carry provision by having a jacket on that is covering his firearm.

My response was addressing the situation if HB 1927 passes. HB 1927 does not proscribe that the handgun must be openly carried or carried in a concealed manner. It addresses "carrying of a firearm".

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:48 am This may have already been answered but I can't find it. If a non licensed person is open carrying but is wearing a jacket that covers it, is this considered concealed? How would this person address this issue in the winter? Wear it over the jacket?

Either you have a license or you don't and either you can see the handgun or you can't. If you can see the handgun it is being openly carried, if you can't see the handgun, it is concealed.

Per my reading of the HB 1927, open carry applies to both licensed and unlicensed individuals with the addition of 46.02 (a-5)

HB 1927 - 46.02 (a-5) wrote:A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.

In other words, holstered handguns are OK. Un-holstered in public is an offense.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:14 am https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/04/15/tex ... arry-bill/

With this, Constitutional Carry appears much closer to reality. While it is not one of Lt.Gov. Patrick's legislative priorities, I cannot see him as being the one who doesn't get it past the Senate and I have a lot more problem imagining Gov. Abbott not signing it.

So back to the questions about what does it mean for LTC. I know that it doesn't mean that LTC in Texas goes away. But I'm trying to figure out how it handles he 30.06 question and it looks like it does it by redefining license holder. Here is what I'm looking at
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0

If HB 1927 passes as written today:
30.05 trespass can be applied to anyone without a license with similar penalties as 30.06/7 (Class C misdemeanor unless you have been notified orally or receive "personal notice that is reasonable under the circumstances" and fail to depart at which point it becomes a class A).

30.06/7 signs do not go away and have the same force of law for license carriers as they do now with the same penalties as before, in other words, no changes from before.

The definition of "License Holder" is the same as it was before, the definition just moved locations in the code.

TPC 46.035 is repealed and much of the language that previously applied only to license holders was placed in 46.03. TPC 46.03 is now applicable to both licensed and unlicensed individuals including locations off limits by statute (none of which changed).

chamberc wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:21 am

toddlinder wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:26 pm If constitutional carry were to pass it appears the current 30.06/30.07 would be changed from "licensed holder" to "person" which would mean the signs would apply to all persons who carry. Would there be a mechanism for private property holders to bar non-licensed holders but to allow licensed holders? (I do see another Const. Carry bill that would create a 30.08 sign for unlicensed persons but it seems like that bill is not the one moving forward at the moment).

Don't have to worry about it, there is zero chance of it passing.

Why do you say that? What do you base your statement on? We have a similar amount of time left in the session as we did when both Campus and Open carry were passed in 2015. HB 1927 has been placed on the House Major State calendar which means that it will be the first bill on Second Reading to be discussed today and has 5 authors and 60 co-authors. The fact that it is on the Major State calendar says that this is a high priority of the House and I think it likely to receive a similar treatment in the Senate.

In my opinion, this is a lot of unwarranted pessimism.