TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:39 pmI oppose some of these and support some. I do not support making ti an offense to carry while intoxicated unless they specifically define intoxicated to be levels of certain drugs (including alcohol) as revealed by a blood or breath test. The problem with the law now is that it is too general on allowing an officer to say the person appeared intoxicated and not show any evidence of it. I like laws that make it a clear sharp line on what is illegal or not. It is easier for the cops to enforce properly and seems more fair to the citizens to know what is illegal.

I generally support removing the fee for the LTC, but I don't have a lot of heartburn about leaving it there also. Since the license is now optional and really would be used to speed up the purchase of weapons (with some people using it for travel), I don't mind paying an appropriate fee for it.

I cannot argue against enhanced penalties for felons committing felonies. It just seems reasonable to me.

I like the provision requiring a verbal request to leave. I am not opposed too strongly to removing it, but it seems like most cops are going to employ that option first. Cops are generally lazy and will not arrest a person who is trying to be reasonable and wants to just leave and not come back.

I support requiring someone to develop an on-line safety class, and strongly support requiring it to be taught periodically in elementary, middle, and high schools. Having something for the responsible adults who are interested in a little basic training in firearms makes sense. I am not sure if I would require DPS to do it, but they "should" know this subject. I think they have a history that is questionable at best on their support for firearms though, so I think I would prefer the experts at training, TEEX, to do it. They do teach police courses too, so it is not too big a stretch for them.

And now for the big one, the Dutton Amendment. In theory, this is an unnecessary bill. I was taught that a person doing something that has as much chance of being legal as illegal is not grounds for a stop. The odds have to favor it being illegal for it to be probable cause. Obviously, if anyone can carry, the odds are way in favor of it not being illegal. But then we run into the Terry v. Ohio case, where the SCOTUS made a big exception to the Fourth Amendment by allowing stops and frisks for suspicious behavior. This is a case where the facts were just played just right and a good cop did his job right and stopped a crime. But it led to what I think of as bad precedent and weakened the Fourth Amendment. One way it weakened the right is by allowing the frisk. Most people do not know all the rules that the case requires, even most cops, and it is abused (ask any young Black man in New York about this) a lot. I have a lot of faith in most cops, but as a result of the misconceptions about frisks and searches, I think we do need this clause still in the law and probably will for the foreseeable future.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:24 pm

Syntyr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:10 pm I think they are trying to stall. Figuring they can run out the clock for this year.

You obviously haven't paid attention to how the legislature works. There is a public hearing tomorrow where this will be the only bill discussed. Some time after that, the committee will offer up, vote on and pass out a committee substitute with the changes that the Senate believe make the House Bill better. For a pattern of what it might look like, see SB 2224.

Then the Senate Committee substitute of CS HB 1927 will go to the Senate floor where it the rules will be suspended to allow the consideration of the bill. This takes (I believe) 18 Senators to do. Anti-gun, or weakening amendments will be proposed by the Democrats and voted down in a marathon session that will take up pretty much all of the Senate's time that day. It will ultimately pass along partisan lines and then will be sent back to the House for concurrence (not likely), or appointing a conference committee (most likely) where members of both chambers hammer out differences that will then be given a simple up/down vote by each chamber. This will most likely happen in the last 3-5 days of the session.

The final bill passed will provide for some form of "Constitutional Carry", but may not resemble very closely the original (and in my opinion, fairly good) bill voted on in the House.

• Create an offense for carrying a handgun while intoxicated

• Remove the $40 fee to receive a license to carry

• Enhance penalties for people convicted of felonies who are caught carrying handguns

• Strike a provision that forbade law enforcement officers from profiling a person based on whether or not they’re carrying a handgun

• Remove a provision that had said that gun-free zone laws don’t apply unless a person is asked to leave

• Require the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a free, online gun safety course

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of a handgun solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun in a holster.

Syntyr wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:10 pm I think they are trying to stall. Figuring they can run out the clock for this year.

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 1:47 pm Don't forget the TABC Blue which pretty much covers every restaurant and convince store in Texas.

The blue sign warns that unlicensed possession of a concealed weapon is a felony. This sign is displayed: On premises where a holder of a concealed handgun license may legally possess a concealed handgun.

So while a LTC holder can go right past this sign anyone unlicensed cannot....

HB 1927 Section 26 wrote: The following provisions are repealed:
(1)Section 11.041, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2)Section 11.61(e), Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(3)Section 61.11, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(4)Section 61.71(f),Alcoholic Beverage Code;

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:43 pm

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:59 am

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:31 am I contacted Joan Huffman yesterday as well.

My big challenge with this bill is that while it leaves the LTC process in place, it provides no incentive for Texans to take the leap from unlicensed to licensed carry other than the already existing things (which few folks know about anyway), such as purchasing without background checks, exception from GFSZ, etc.

Here’s what I wish would be included:

Instead of extending 3006 and 3007 to cover unlicensed carry, I’d like to see that extension only apply to oral notification. If someone tells me ‘no guns here’, that should apply equally irrespective of what statute we’re carrying under.

But for the written notification aspects of 3006 and 3007, instead of EXTENDING this to unlicensed carry, I’d like to see it SHIFTED to unlicensed carry. This would mean that the signs have a force of law (Class C) for unlicensed carriers, but none for licensed carriers.

This does a few things: It assures that private property rights are sacrosanct in Texas: you tell me not to, and I can’t carry. But it saves us from the rampant expansion of signage that we should expect (exactly as it did when open carry passed). Remember the liberal politicians who printed signs of their own and went door-to-door passing them out for free to businesses? I do, and I expect it will happen even larger this time.

I asked Sen. Huffman to support this bill, and I suggested this amendment for her as well, because it provides a carrot (tangible benefits) to incentivize people to get their LTC, rather than the stick (Class A misdemeanor) they’ve used for decades. I have no idea if she’ll do either, but let’s hope that it happens at some level.

In the current proposal, 30.06/7 do not extend to unlicensed carry. These still only apply ONLY to license holders. Oral and personal notification applies to everyone.

I think I'm misunderstanding your post above. Are you saying that a 30.06 sign only applies to someone who is carrying concealed under the authority of their LTC? If so, couldn't that same person walk right by a 30.06 sign and carry under their constitutional carry rights?

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 23, 2021 10:31 am I contacted Joan Huffman yesterday as well.

My big challenge with this bill is that while it leaves the LTC process in place, it provides no incentive for Texans to take the leap from unlicensed to licensed carry other than the already existing things (which few folks know about anyway), such as purchasing without background checks, exception from GFSZ, etc.

Here’s what I wish would be included:

Instead of extending 3006 and 3007 to cover unlicensed carry, I’d like to see that extension only apply to oral notification. If someone tells me ‘no guns here’, that should apply equally irrespective of what statute we’re carrying under.

But for the written notification aspects of 3006 and 3007, instead of EXTENDING this to unlicensed carry, I’d like to see it SHIFTED to unlicensed carry. This would mean that the signs have a force of law (Class C) for unlicensed carriers, but none for licensed carriers.

This does a few things: It assures that private property rights are sacrosanct in Texas: you tell me not to, and I can’t carry. But it saves us from the rampant expansion of signage that we should expect (exactly as it did when open carry passed). Remember the liberal politicians who printed signs of their own and went door-to-door passing them out for free to businesses? I do, and I expect it will happen even larger this time.

I asked Sen. Huffman to support this bill, and I suggested this amendment for her as well, because it provides a carrot (tangible benefits) to incentivize people to get their LTC, rather than the stick (Class A misdemeanor) they’ve used for decades. I have no idea if she’ll do either, but let’s hope that it happens at some level.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 4:09 pm "Law Enforcement" opposition = Art Acevedo.