Poll: 2013 Session

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Which of the following Are your top 3 choices to pursue during the 2013 session?

Open Carry
104
21%
Campus Carry
102
21%
Expand Parking Lot Law
38
8%
Easier CHL renewals
37
7%
Reduce CHL fees
64
13%
Carry at Sporting events, bars, ect
59
12%
Full Constitutional carry
91
18%
 
Total votes : 495

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby johnferg69 » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:58 pm

I'm part of the "tin-foil hat" crowd so you know what I voted for!!!
johnferg69
Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: Almost to the goat lovers!

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby artx » Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:58 am

Jumping Frog wrote:In PC §46.15 - Nonapplicability:

Move (b)(6) dealing with CHL's from (b) to (a), placing them in the same category as LEO's, and making PC §46.02 and PC §46.03 non-applicable to CHL's.

That would leave PC §46.035 still applying to CHL's, but it sets up the next session (2015) to have a bill allowing unlicensed open carry while adapting PC §46.035 to apply only to unlicensed open carry (thereby removing CHL's from PC §46.035).


+1!!!!
artx
Member
 
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:14 pm
Location: SATX

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:17 am

steveincowtown wrote:
Reds45ACP wrote:Not on the list but it would be nice: Stricter rules regarding the placement of 30.06 and 51% signs. I will happily obey these but I hate going places where they are placed in some out of the way location where I am already into an establishment and breaking the rules.



Hey if we a dreaming here, eliminate 30.06, and have the law written so that Gun Busters signs mean nothing, except that you may be asked to leave the property if seen with a gun. If you do not leave the property it would be a simple (non firearms related) trespass charge.

This would be similar to what some other states have, and would set us up for success with Open Carry in future sessions.

Although I understand what the thinking was at the time (or at least believe I do) 30.06 has run its course and will need be eliminated or majorly retrofitted for us to move forward on other issues.


30.06 is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. It literately saved the CHL program and it still does today. It also prevents governmental agencies from banning armed CHL's from entering government owned property.

Also, the legislature would never support a bill that made it impossible to prohibit people from entering private property, forcing property owners to verbally tell each and every person they don't want on their property to leave. We have two choices, TPC §30.05 (any sign works) or TPC §30.06 (nothing but the "big ugly sign" works).

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12512
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:20 am

canvasbck wrote:I find something odd. The answer with the least number of responses, making renewals easier, is precisely what the first two pre-filed bills address. I'm pretty sure if I had made the poll a "pick one" poll, it would have few if any people making it their top priority.


HB47 doesn't deal with renewals; it lowers the time required for the first-time applicants from 10 hrs to 4 hrs. HB48 removes the requirement to take a renewal class to renew a CHL.

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12512
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:23 am

johnferg69 wrote:I'm part of the "tin-foil hat" crowd so you know what I voted for!!!


The "tin foil hat crowd" are those that say "if you don't agree with me 100%, that means you are anti-RKBA." Is that what you mean?

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12512
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby johnferg69 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:32 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
johnferg69 wrote:I'm part of the "tin-foil hat" crowd so you know what I voted for!!!


The "tin foil hat crowd" are those that say "if you don't agree with me 100%, that means you are anti-RKBA." Is that what you mean?

Chas.


What I mean is that I believe in Constitutional Carry and support Open Carry if the law is written responsibly.
johnferg69
Member
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: Almost to the goat lovers!

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby smoothoperator » Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:36 pm

Suppose it becomes legal to open carry in Texas, like it is in a majority of the states. Why would any change to 30.05 or 30.06 be required? Wouldn't the same signs or other notice that a property owner currently uses to prohibit someone carrying an AK or shotgun apply automatically to openly carried handguns? The defense to prosecution for weapons in 30.05 only applies if someone is carrying a concealed handgun. (LEO get nonapplicability.)

30.05 (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.
smoothoperator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:15 pm

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby RPB » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:58 pm

At a medical office building which is posted 30.06, one currently can choose to open carry an ak-47, or carry it concealed ... I choose concealed carry for AK-47 as it's less likely to get even more signs posted by the easily frightened yet misinformed liberal property owner who figured 30.06 signs protected him until someone walks in open carrying an AK ...

I'm a "never show your hole card" guy ... as in forgiveness is easier to get than asking permission. Hey, bank manager ... you mind if I carry what YOU call an assault rifle around in your bank, it's legal but you made me leave mt concealed handgun in the car ... sometimes concealed is 100% better than open carry if the goal is to be legally armed and able to perform self protection, rat5her than try to make political statements that we "should be allowed to" which is true, but I'd rather be safe than make political statements to private property owners.

I carry now 2 Glocks daily with 51 rounds of ammo ... I do not need or want everyone knowing that.
I prefer a Jackie Chan look than a Rambo/Charles Atlas look, yet am able to take care of myself without some idiot wanting to challenge me to see who is badder/faster/stronger whatever.

I like 30.06 law, if we reverted to "any old sign will prohibit *firearms*" under 30.05 then I couldn't carry my AK either and would only get my Kimber Pepper Blaster and knife ... and maybe a pistol crossbow ...
I'm no lawyer

"Never show your hole card" "Always have something in reserve"
RPB
Banned
 
Posts: 8697
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby tbrown » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:57 pm

Good idea RPB. A concealed AK underfolder (bag, etc.) is also a good choice for 51% bars where concealed handguns are prohibited.
"if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"
tbrown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1343
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: South Austin

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby Heartland Patriot » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:01 pm

RPB wrote:At a medical office building which is posted 30.06, one currently can choose to open carry an ak-47, or carry it concealed ... I choose concealed carry for AK-47 as it's less likely to get even more signs posted by the easily frightened yet misinformed liberal property owner who figured 30.06 signs protected him until someone walks in open carrying an AK ...

I'm a "never show your hole card" guy ... as in forgiveness is easier to get than asking permission. Hey, bank manager ... you mind if I carry what YOU call an assault rifle around in your bank, it's legal but you made me leave mt concealed handgun in the car ... sometimes concealed is 100% better than open carry if the goal is to be legally armed and able to perform self protection, rat5her than try to make political statements that we "should be allowed to" which is true, but I'd rather be safe than make political statements to private property owners.

I carry now 2 Glocks daily with 51 rounds of ammo ... I do not need or want everyone knowing that.
I prefer a Jackie Chan look than a Rambo/Charles Atlas look, yet am able to take care of myself without some idiot wanting to challenge me to see who is badder/faster/stronger whatever.

I like 30.06 law, if we reverted to "any old sign will prohibit *firearms*" under 30.05 then I couldn't carry my AK either and would only get my Kimber Pepper Blaster and knife ... and maybe a pistol crossbow ...


You really don't think that if we had open carry in Texas that it would result in "I'mma callin' you out, varmint" sort of situations, do you? If it did, wouldn't they have already had that happen, in such states as Arizona, and wouldn't the liberal media have blasted it daily and nightly? I can completely understand the worry about business owners putting up signs to block ALL carry, but I do NOT worry about folks "challenging" me. If that isn't what you meant, I apologize, but I have seen and heard some folks say it will lead to that.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed“.---Mark Twain
User avatar
Heartland Patriot
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:15 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby apostate » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:26 am

I wish I could have allocated all 3 of my votes to campus carry. That's the only place I go regularly where I have to disarm. Worse, it's for no rational reason - only Bradyesque hysteria. Le sigh.
You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'.
apostate
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Houston Texas

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby steveincowtown » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:20 pm

tbrown wrote:Good idea RPB. A concealed AK underfolder (bag, etc.) is also a good choice for 51% bars where concealed handguns are prohibited.


I believe 51% covers all weapons concealed and unconcealed.
The Time is Now...
NRA Lifetime Member
steveincowtown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby Jumping Frog » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:50 pm

steveincowtown wrote:I believe 51% covers all weapons concealed and unconcealed.

GC §411.204(c) would disagree with you.

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
-Bob . . . NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, TFC member, JFPO member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots.
User avatar
Jumping Frog
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby MeMelYup » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:17 pm

Jumping Frog wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:I believe 51% covers all weapons concealed and unconcealed.

GC §411.204(c) would disagree with you.

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Pay attention to part a ("GC §411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.
(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, [color=#BF0040]shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c).[/color]"), this is where most places mess up.
MeMelYup
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Poll: 2013 Session

Postby AJSully421 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:19 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:
Reds45ACP wrote:Not on the list but it would be nice: Stricter rules regarding the placement of 30.06 and 51% signs. I will happily obey these but I hate going places where they are placed in some out of the way location where I am already into an establishment and breaking the rules.



Hey if we a dreaming here, eliminate 30.06, and have the law written so that Gun Busters signs mean nothing, except that you may be asked to leave the property if seen with a gun. If you do not leave the property it would be a simple (non firearms related) trespass charge.

This would be similar to what some other states have, and would set us up for success with Open Carry in future sessions.

Although I understand what the thinking was at the time (or at least believe I do) 30.06 has run its course and will need be eliminated or majorly retrofitted for us to move forward on other issues.


30.06 is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. It literately saved the CHL program and it still does today. It also prevents governmental agencies from banning armed CHL's from entering government owned property.

Also, the legislature would never support a bill that made it impossible to prohibit people from entering private property, forcing property owners to verbally tell each and every person they don't want on their property to leave. We have two choices, TPC §30.05 (any sign works) or TPC §30.06 (nothing but the "big ugly sign" works).

Chas.


I would take 30.06 and change (c)(B)(ii) from "inch" to "foot". That's right... 1 foot high letters, in english and spanish. Just to screw with them, I would sneak it into some unrelated bill about puppies or kittens... or children.
Armed Citizen
AJSully421
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook

PreviousNext

Return to 2013 Texas Legislative Session

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest