open carry bill filed

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[anygunanywhere]

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.

Correct. That is the law now. Intentional will get you in trouble. Unintatntional will not. In my world a "mishap" is not an "I am showing my gun so I can threaten you".

There is so much fear out there about unintentional failure to conceal that this myth must be minimized.

Anygunanywhere

[zajones08]

My CHL instructor told our entire class that you can be arrested for printing. A friend of mine was picked up by two policemen and taken outside of a waffle house for printing even though there was no 30.06 sign. The law is pretty clear that it only applies to intentional failure to conceal but police and CHL instructors alike still spread this myth of unintentional failure to conceal.

[texanjoker]

I think this actually might have a chance to pass this time around. My reason is that Texas will want to pass PRO GUN stuff while the feds try to pass anti gun stuff.

[anygunanywhere]

My CHL instructor told our entire class that you can be arrested for printing. A friend of mine was picked up by two policemen and taken outside of a waffle house for printing even though there was no 30.06 sign. The law is pretty clear that it only applies to intentional failure to conceal but police and CHL instructors alike still spread this myth of unintentional failure to conceal.

Pass all the laws you want but more laws will not educate the uneducated.

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

I think this actually might have a chance to pass this time around. My reason is that Texas will want to pass PRO GUN stuff while the feds try to pass anti gun stuff.

If it guts 30.06 I will fight against it. This is one of those compromises we don't need.

Lose nothing.

Gain some.

I like the idea of OC but it is not worth losing something we already have. Bad legislation is ...umm....BAD.

Anygunanywhere

[steveincowtown]

I don't understand how Lavender has screwed this up again.

Don't

mess

with

30.06.


On the other hand if anyone thinks that Strauss will let this see the light of day, I would have to say you are sadly mistaken.

[Jasonw560]

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.

That's what I thought, too.

Disappointed: especially from someone whose bio says he's "Pro 2nd amendment".

This bill needs a LOT of work to be palatable.

[Jasonw560]

I don't understand how Lavender has screwed this up again.

Don't

mess

with

30.06.


On the other hand if anyone thinks that Strauss will let this see the light of day, I would have to say you are sadly mistaken.

Rep. Lavender's office is getting a phone call from me on Monday about this.

You think he would have learned. Everyone on this board should call.

[canvasbck]

To say.I'm disappointed would be a severe understatement. I asked him directly if this year's open carry bill would leave30.06 alone. He publicly stated that it would and he would not do anything to endanger the gains we have made in the past.

[txmatt]

I'm no lawyer, but what is so hard about leaving 30.06 notice alone for concealed carry and just letting a combination of gun busters and verbal notice suffice for open carry? That is, that a gun buster (or generic "no guns") would prohibit open carry, but let there be some verbal notice required before it becomes criminal trespass. Seems like that would make everyone happy.

Or better yet just make an MPA-like exception that states if you aren't doing bad things and aren't prohibited by law from posessing a handgun and it's not concealed then it's ok (ie constitutional open carry... not anytime soon, I know). Would be so clean and simple and would leave CHLs alone. The fact that the MPA has not led to blood in the streets seems to be pretty good evidence that this isn't likely to be a problem. The "no guns" policy of businesses could be handled the same as their "no shirt, no shoes, no service" polices

Does anyone know what dual points of resistance means? my holsters all provide resistance on both sides of the gun so would that do?

[joelamosobadiah]

Wow, was really hoping this would be a good bill, but I'm really disappointed. Rep. Lavender publicly told myself and others this bill wouldn't touch 30.06. How sad to see that wasn't true.

[joelamosobadiah]

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.

I agree with point 1. It does make 30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry. That's a big negative.
From my reading of the bill it appears he retained the 1" contrasting letters and both languages, however, it removes the exact wording and instead says language indicating that.....

Still IMO too many negatives to support, but it does appear that he attempted to appease both sides.

How hard could it have been to just not touch the progress already made.

[Bullwhip]

I agree with point 1. It does make 30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry. That's a big negative.
From my reading of the bill it appears he retained the 1" contrasting letters and both languages, however, it removes the exact wording and instead says language indicating that.....

Really disappointed this got so screwed up. I don't think he wrote it, he's been saying he was waiting on it to get back from "the lawyers" (lege lawyers? Others?). Whoever wrote it mess up big time.

All those additions of "or unconcealed", shoulda just deleted "concealed" instead.

[joelamosobadiah]

I agree with point 1. It does make 30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry. That's a big negative.
From my reading of the bill it appears he retained the 1" contrasting letters and both languages, however, it removes the exact wording and instead says language indicating that.....

Really disappointed this got so screwed up. I don't think he wrote it, he's been saying he was waiting on it to get back from "the lawyers" (lege lawyers? Others?). Whoever wrote it mess up big time.

All those additions of "or unconcealed", shoulda just deleted "concealed" instead.

That still would have left the issue of business owners having no way to prohibit open carry while allowing concealed. He should have left 30.06 alone to cover concealed carry and added a provision for CHLs to carry openly, but any no guns sign would carry force of law for open carry.