TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote:Is there any word on SB 1907? I understand that full campus carry seems like its becoming a real long shot, but its frustrating to be worried that having my pistol in my vehicle could end up getting me kicked out of school...so I don't have it with me. And the main reason I don't is the police academy, with dog-handlers, shares the parking lot at my school. I don't know what those dogs can smell, but they take them by peoples' vehicles on what seems to be a regular but random basis. I'm getting close to the end of my college career and I just can't afford to get kicked out with the end in sight.

I can't say anything now, but SB1907 is fine.

Chas.

Richard_B wrote:In plain English, "It is a defense...." means bring it up at your trial. It would have been better if the law were "It is not an offense....", but that is the way it is. The section on intentional display simply say "it is an offense if...." which, presumably also means that you would get to bring this up at your trial if some prosecutor pushes it. I guess this leaves something to be dealt with in the next legislative session in two years.

Yes, it is a defense to prosecution, but so is being a LEO, a CHL holder and numerous other defenses. Technically, every COP and every CHL can be arrested every day and have to prove in court that they are a COP or CHL. The only alternatives to "defenses" are "exceptions" but they are not applicable when there is a fact determination to be made by a judge or jury. When facing a charge of "intentional display" under §46.035(a), the question as to whether you would have been justified in using force or deadly force (including threats under TPC §9.04) is a question of fact. It's not something that can be proven to the LEO on the street by showing your CHL, LEO ID, or driver's license.

As a practical matter, most LEOs aren't going to make the arrest for violating §46.035(a) if the facts show you could have used force or deadly force. If he/she did and the prosecutor disagreed, the charges would be dropped. The likelihood of actually having to prove this defense in court is minimal, unless there truly is no basis for the use of force.

Richard_B wrote:Plainly, "calculated to cause alarm" means more than merely having the firearm in plain view. We are talking about the "person of ordinary sensibility", not someone who has an anxiety attack at the prospect of even seeing a firearm. Your own experience probably suggests circumstances which would cause alarm if someone were handing a firearm. It is potentially helpful language.

As noted in other posts, the "calculated to cause alarm" language was stripped from the bill in committee. I've explained why so I won't go into that again.

Chas.

tico wrote:I'll keep calling and letter-writing, but it's too easy for our senators and reps to say "I support hunters" and avoid the more difficult issues of self-defense in an urban environment while still getting the TSRA's support because they're republican.
-T

Republicans aren't trying to use the "I support hunters" slogan; that's the Democrats' tactic. Republicans have passed numerous pro self-defense bills in numerous sessions, including this session. Castle Doctrine (SB378 - 2007); Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007); Employer Parking Lot bill (SB321 - 2011) are just three of the better known bills that directly address self-defense. There are more that don't have the curb appeal of these high profile bills and/or impact self-defense indirectly.

TSRA rates, supports or opposes Senators and Representatives based upon their records when they have one, and upon their questionnaires when they have no record. Merely being a Republican doesn't entitle you to anything.

Chas.

Owens wrote:Charles, it may be helpful in 2015, but for now it does nothing more than irritate the begeebees out of a bunch of people that are fed up with the "good for me and not for thee" attitude. It don't feed the bulldog today!

Just playing a hunch here, but those that voted for that corona ammendment are probably the same ones that prevented 972.

Please consider another possibility. Those who blocked HB972 were blocking 508 until the Carona admendment was added. HB508 is a major bill folks; it's impact should not be underestimated. Losing it would be far more significant than not passing HB972 in terms of the number of people impacted by its protections.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:Charles, I submit that Senator Birdwell would be the perfect sponsor for the bill.

I keeping with our practice of starting on the next session at the end of the ongoing one, we've already selected a Senate sponsor. (You knew this was coming, but . . . sorry, it's a secret.) He's the perfect one to carry the bill.

As I've already said, I don't like the Carona amendment at all, but it will be helpful in 2015.

Chas.

texanjoker wrote:is there a list anywhere of what they actually accomplished?

The Bill Status Report on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is up to date now and I'll be publishing a report when the session is over.

Chas.

HB3142 removes the SA/NSA distinction. SB1400 that prevents cities from regulation the ownership and possession of airguns was added to HB3142 as an amendment. The House will probably concur, but if not, a conference committee will be appointed. HB3142 should be fine.

Chas.

TxLobo wrote:Thank you sir..


somehow, I'm not that surprised.. but somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind, I remember the Gov saying that he would like to see it where every CHL holder could carry anywhere... So maybe he will send this one back to them to fix..

The Governor can't send it back. If he vetoes it, it's a major loss for Texas CHLs! The Carona amendment will be used to our advantage in 2015.

Chas.

wrinkles wrote:So now, how is "plain sight" defined.
For example a guy was arrested in Midland/Odessa a while back because he was wearing a shoulder holster and a biker's vest that allowed the gun to be visible on occasions when extending his arms, bending down and such. Would that be "in plain sight"?

The bigger question is what constitutes "displaying?"

Chas.

Beiruty wrote:Case 1:
Verbal argument between a CHLer and another person. CHLer removes a his concealment to "get ready for a fight". That is display calculated to alarm.
Case 2:
At a BBQ, in private residence back yard, I do open carry my BBQ pistol in a holster. After September 1st 2013, it is legal.

The "calculated to cause alarm" phrase was deleted from the Bill as passed. That was done because it was correctly argued that SB299 would have 1) created open-carry; and 2) prosecutors would have had a very difficult time prosecuting anyone for a violation of TPC §46.035(a).

Chas.

Listening to Sen. Wendy Davis makes me ill. That fact that she was elected to the Senate is puzzling beyond belief.

Chas.

SB299 has been signed by Gov. Perry and it will be effective on Sept. 1, 2013.

Chas.