HB 56 filed with text

[denwego]

Just read the bill's text cover to cover. For everyone who's in the too-long-didn't-read crowd and cares about §30.06, here's what you want to see:

THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE 30.06 FOR CONCEALED CARRIERS.

All it does is clarify that §30.06 applies to concealed carry. Gun busters or open-carry-banning signs have no effect on carrying concealed under this bill. Additionally, a legal sign banning open carry would not ban licensed concealed carry under a CHL. It does create a similar requirement for those wishing to ban permitted open carry, but they are mutually exclusive. An open carry sign under this bill has no more effect on concealed carry than any other invalid sign does right now.

The fact that §30.06 doesn't have anything in the bill text after (b) is because nothing is being changed. That's how amendatory bills work, so don't worry any! Nothing is being removed or altered in function about the current §30.06. If you were in the camp of "if they don't change how it is now and just add open carry, I would support it," you should be all set - people listened and it's all good now.

[RottenApple]

Just read the bill's text cover to cover. For everyone who's in the too-long-didn't-read crowd and cares about §30.06, here's what you want to see:

THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE 30.06 FOR CONCEALED CARRIERS.

All it does is clarify that §30.06 applies to concealed carry. Gun busters or open-carry-banning signs have no effect on carrying concealed under this bill. Additionally, a legal sign banning open carry would not ban licensed concealed carry under a CHL. It does create a similar requirement for those wishing to ban permitted open carry, but they are mutually exclusive. An open carry sign under this bill has no more effect on concealed carry than any other invalid sign does right now.

The fact that §30.06 doesn't have anything in the bill text after (b) is because nothing is being changed. That's how amendatory bills work, so don't worry any! Nothing is being removed or altered in function about the current §30.06. If you were in the camp of "if they don't change how it is now and just add open carry, I would support it," you should be all set - people listened and it's all good now.

Ok. I see the one difference between the current and modified versions, and you seem to be correct in your interpretation. It seems they added a single word, "concealed", to 30.06(a)(1). But why "amend" the rest of (a) when there's no changes?

[denwego]

Just read the bill's text cover to cover. For everyone who's in the too-long-didn't-read crowd and cares about §30.06, here's what you want to see:

THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE 30.06 FOR CONCEALED CARRIERS.

All it does is clarify that §30.06 applies to concealed carry. Gun busters or open-carry-banning signs have no effect on carrying concealed under this bill. Additionally, a legal sign banning open carry would not ban licensed concealed carry under a CHL. It does create a similar requirement for those wishing to ban permitted open carry, but they are mutually exclusive. An open carry sign under this bill has no more effect on concealed carry than any other invalid sign does right now.

The fact that §30.06 doesn't have anything in the bill text after (b) is because nothing is being changed. That's how amendatory bills work, so don't worry any! Nothing is being removed or altered in function about the current §30.06. If you were in the camp of "if they don't change how it is now and just add open carry, I would support it," you should be all set - people listened and it's all good now.

Ok. I see the one difference between the current and modified versions, and you seem to be correct in your interpretation. It seems they added a single word, "concealed", to 30.06(a)(1). But why "amend" the rest of (a) when there's no changes?

That's also just the way they note changes. If any part of any section or subsection is changed, the entire text is duplicated so the reader can see it in context. It's only a single word, but they include all of §30.06(a) so that the (albeit minor) change can be viewed contextually. It's the opposite of not listing (b) ; since nothing is changed, it's not reproduced at all, so that the reader wouldn't inadvertently think that anything has been altered. It's not necessarily intuitive, as some folks here are a bit confused, but once you know the standardized way it's employed, it does make things very clear as to what's changed and what isn't!

[jerry_r60]

Just read the bill's text cover to cover. For everyone who's in the too-long-didn't-read crowd and cares about §30.06, here's what you want to see:

THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE 30.06 FOR CONCEALED CARRIERS.

All it does is clarify that §30.06 applies to concealed carry. Gun busters or open-carry-banning signs have no effect on carrying concealed under this bill. Additionally, a legal sign banning open carry would not ban licensed concealed carry under a CHL. It does create a similar requirement for those wishing to ban permitted open carry, but they are mutually exclusive. An open carry sign under this bill has no more effect on concealed carry than any other invalid sign does right now.

The fact that §30.06 doesn't have anything in the bill text after (b) is because nothing is being changed. That's how amendatory bills work, so don't worry any! Nothing is being removed or altered in function about the current §30.06. If you were in the camp of "if they don't change how it is now and just add open carry, I would support it," you should be all set - people listened and it's all good now.

Aren't we left with the same concern many have voiced? If people are scared of OC make the effort to see how to stop it and find all they need is a special sign and that the sign is almost identical to the 3.06, isn't it likely that they just post both?

[RottenApple]

Aren't we left with the same concern many have voiced? If people are scared of OC make the effort to see how to stop it and find all they need is a special sign and that the sign is almost identical to the 3.06, isn't it likely that they just post both?

Some places will, sure. Mostly those that are already posting 30.06. But most places will just post the 30.07 (if they post at all) because while they want to prohibit carry, they don't want to put up 2 Big Ugly Signs. I'm even willing to wager that we won't see very many 30.07 signs at all, but rather people just being told verbally that they can't open carry in their business.

[Beiruty]

Just read the bill's text cover to cover. For everyone who's in the too-long-didn't-read crowd and cares about §30.06, here's what you want to see:

THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE 30.06 FOR CONCEALED CARRIERS.

All it does is clarify that §30.06 applies to concealed carry. Gun busters or open-carry-banning signs have no effect on carrying concealed under this bill. Additionally, a legal sign banning open carry would not ban licensed concealed carry under a CHL. It does create a similar requirement for those wishing to ban permitted open carry, but they are mutually exclusive. An open carry sign under this bill has no more effect on concealed carry than any other invalid sign does right now.

The fact that §30.06 doesn't have anything in the bill text after (b) is because nothing is being changed. That's how amendatory bills work, so don't worry any! Nothing is being removed or altered in function about the current §30.06. If you were in the camp of "if they don't change how it is now and just add open carry, I would support it," you should be all set - people listened and it's all good now.

Aren't we left with the same concern many have voiced? If people are scared of OC make the effort to see how to stop it and find all they need is a special sign and that the sign is almost identical to the 3.06, isn't it likely that they just post both?

30.06 sign for CC, 30.07 for OC. 2 Large signs to be enforceable should be taller than 5-6 ft high. I am in for 2 Large signs.

Yesterday, at TWC service center At Campbell and Greenville Ave (Richardson, TX) was faced with a valid 30.06. All what I did is turned back few yards to my car and removed my sidearm and put in the trunk, I never cared to be seen. If there 30.06 you should obey the law and disarm and I was just doing that. OC would make the "discrete disarming" something of the past.
+
I vote for HL just drop the "C".

[JKTex]

Just read the bill's text cover to cover. For everyone who's in the too-long-didn't-read crowd and cares about §30.06, here's what you want to see:

THIS BILL DOES NOT CHANGE 30.06 FOR CONCEALED CARRIERS.

All it does is clarify that §30.06 applies to concealed carry. Gun busters or open-carry-banning signs have no effect on carrying concealed under this bill. Additionally, a legal sign banning open carry would not ban licensed concealed carry under a CHL. It does create a similar requirement for those wishing to ban permitted open carry, but they are mutually exclusive. An open carry sign under this bill has no more effect on concealed carry than any other invalid sign does right now.

The fact that §30.06 doesn't have anything in the bill text after (b) is because nothing is being changed. That's how amendatory bills work, so don't worry any! Nothing is being removed or altered in function about the current §30.06. If you were in the camp of "if they don't change how it is now and just add open carry, I would support it," you should be all set - people listened and it's all good now.

Aren't we left with the same concern many have voiced? If people are scared of OC make the effort to see how to stop it and find all they need is a special sign and that the sign is almost identical to the 3.06, isn't it likely that they just post both?

30.06 sign for CC, 30.07 for OC. 2 Large signs to be enforceable should be taller than 5-6 ft high. I am in for 2 Large signs.

Yesterday, at TWC service center At Campbell and Greenville Ave (Richardson, TX) was faced with a valid 30.06. All what I did is turned back few yards to my car and removed my sidearm and put in the trunk, I never cared to be seen. If there 30.06 you should obey the law and disarm and I was just doing that. OC would make the "discrete disarming" something of the past.
+
I vote for HL just drop the "C".

The sign may have been printed correctly, but that doesn't make it valid.

[JKTex]

They are identical. So the only modification this bill could possibly mean is the elimination of everything after (B).

If anything were changing beyond what is in the bill it would be present and the change indicated, which means, if it were stricken, then the text would show by being stricken out.

It's law, it's exact, it's not for the faint of heart, it's to confuse us mere mortals. But at the end of the day, anything amending a law will show everything being changed, including anything that removed.

[SherwoodForest]

I will not return to my vehicle in a parking lot to store a handgun. There are criminals roosting in parking lots looking for people who make valuable "deposits" in their vehicles.