TexasCHLforum.com

It's amazing what having time to read instead of skim and having more than 3 hours sleep can do. I completely missed that part of 06/07 but I take responsibility. This is why I have not been podcasting, too many irons in too many fires and not enough of me to tend them all. Also a phone isn't thebest device to read and post from

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:
I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

I don't think that you can say that you are always carrying under authority of LTC, just because you have one. This would mean that TODAY, a non-licensee could drive a car into a 30.06 posted parking lot (under MPA), but a licensee could not? Or as I posited an on duty LEO who happened to have a LTC could be banned with 30.06/7, but not a LEO without one.

Also, TODAY...in order to carry "under the authority" of your LTC you legally must have it on you (46.15). Additionally, is it legal for a non-LTC to carry in their home while intoxicated, but not a LTC (46.035). Not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt it's illegal.

If you TODAY have an LTC and you are at the (public) range openly displaying your handgun out of it's holster and shooting it, are you violating 46.035 because it is not in a shoulder or belt holster? Likewise while handgun hunting?

There are two groups of people who can legally carry a firearm in Texas. First is Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) the Second is License To Carry a handgun holders (LTCs). LEOs can, and some do, get LTCs or have them when they become LEOs. A LEO with an LTC is technically in violation of Texas penal code 30.07 when they are in uniform carrying openly and walk past a 30.07 sign. They are also in violation of 30.06 if they are carrying a concealed backup weapon and walk past a 30.06 sign, even if they are in uniform. 30.06 and 30.07 DO NOT provide an exception for peace officers. Should a prosecutor decide to make an issue out of an officer w/ an LTC carrying past a 30.06/30.07 the officer has little recourse. This would win the prosecutor a lot of votes from the anarchist and anti-LEO crowds. Should a license holder drive past a 30.06 sign (even w/o their license in their possession) into a posted parking lot a case could be made to prosecute them I suspect. The analysis that 30.06 applies to license holders even if they are not carrying under the authority of the license appears to be valid considering only the letter of the law.

As for an intoxicated LTC carrying in their home, I have no clue at this time as I am in need of sleep and I have no need to look into this so I will not (I suspect that a licensee is perfectly legal to carry in their home while intoxicated if a non-licensee is because 46.035 has a provision requiring the actor be carrying under the authority of the license). I suggest you ask an attorney who is more awake and more familiar with that aspect of the law.

At a public range, hunting, ect. are activities permitted under 46.02 and do not require a license. 46.035 does not apply in these instances I suspect, as I mentioned above in this post, but once again seek the advice of an attorney if you are concerned about it. The key difference between 46.035 and 30.06/30.07 is that 30.06/30.07 has no provision requiring the actor to be carrying under the authority of the license while 46.035 requires the actor carry under the authority of their license in order for it to apply. If you are involved in an activity that does not require the license then the license holder is logically not carrying under the authority of the license and can participate.

Arguments based on comparing 46.035 to 30.06/30.07 is like comparing Glocks and Oranges, You might make an argument that they are both desirable but you can not logically argue that they are both suitable for eating.

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

What does 30.05 have to do with a 30.06/7 sign? There is no exemption for Peace Officers in 30.06/7 only the fact that it doesn't apply because even if they HAVE a LTC, they are not carrying under it's authority.

I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

ScottDLS wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

AJSully421 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I want a 30.08 and 30.09 for unlicensed CC and OC, and change one word in .06 and .07, making every current sign obsolete and invalid.

The most recent language posted effectively renders 30.06/7 unenforceable. I have discussed why above...but here's the short version:

30.06/7 only apply to carrying "under the authority of your LTC". If you can carry without a license then you aren't carrying "under the authority" of your LTC. Otherwise a cop with LTC can never carry past 30.06/7.

30.05 has an exemption for people who are physically in possession of a LTC, even if they aren't carrying under it's authority....so a gunbuster doesn't work for license holders either.

Hey, I like that. It sounds good enough for me to pitch it to a jury on a Class C charge. Worst case is $200 if you lose.

I would suspect that if you are carrying and have your license on you then you will be presumed to be carrying under the authority of your license. If you do not have your license on you then you will be presumed to be carrying under this bill should it be passed and signed into law. I would like to wait and see what Charles has to say on this issue considering that he is an attorney and knows more than a little about gun laws.

Official CSHB1911 text available here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01911H.htm

I have not verified how accurate the filed posted by the OP is yet.

Liberty wrote:I sure hope that the 30.06 wording isn't a poison pill. If this is the wording the bill must be stopped.

CHL holders will big time losers with the now smaller easier signs. Any bill messing with the 30/06 signs was dangerous for us. The one sign does all makes it even more tempting for the gun banners. Is it too late to stop this bill? Is TSRA still supporting it?

Good bill gone bad!

The version posted by the OP in the first post only mentions Section 30.06 twice and 30.07 once in changes made to section 46.035 in section fifteen of the bill. That version of the bill does not touch 30.06/30.07. While the text the OP posted is not official yet, it is exactly the same as something that was emailed to my podcast account about the same time by a different party so I think this is at the very least a near final draft of CSHB1911 if not the final version of CSHB1911.

I think there is some confusion as to what version of the bill is being discussed. As of the time of this post the Texas Legislature's website has only the text of HB1911 as it was introduced. The OP posted text from what I understand to be the final Committee Substitute version. That document is a PDF which you can find the download/view link in the first post of this thread. The language in that version does NOT alter 30.06/30.07 while making 30.05 apply to unlicensed carry.

Ruark wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote: ... if HEB wants to keep openly carried pistols out of their store, the only way they will be able to do that is post 30.07 AND a gun buster sign which will prohibit unlicensed concealed carriers as well.

Sheesh. So if a business had a 30.07 sign, but no gunbuster sign, and I wanted to go in carrying openly, I could toss my LTC into the glove box before I went into the store. Then I'd be a legal unlicensed carrier.......????

This is all going to be idiotically complicated. You won't find 1 business owner in 100,000 that will have a correct understanding of everything.

Or they could post an 07 and a "No Open Carry" sign

Actually that line adds an exemption to 46.035 for peace officers and such under 46.15(a) where the change to 46.15(b) makes 46.02 not apply to license holders AND those it defines as being authorized to carry a firearm w/o a license.

I don't see how it makes 46.035 void in any way nor do I see where it allows people to carry into schools. As far as I can tell 46.03 is left alone except for 46.03(e-1) and 46.03(e-2) where it is amended to allow unlicensed individuals a chance to leave the secure area of an airport like licensed people are given currently.

Edit to add: In 46.035 aside from making 46.035 apply to non license holders it does remove places of worship from the list of off limits locations that must post a sign to actually be off limits.