TexasCHLforum.com

b322da wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

b322da wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:My life just got so much neater!

Oh no! To touch briefly on another thread, Hoi, my good buddy, I just looked up "culture."

Elmo

Score!

OK: challenge. Best google scholar reference to the intersection of culture and weapons ownership. We have until Friday morning at 9 to post it in the barbarian thread. Do you accept?

NO, NO, NO! I are too much of a gentleman to take you on again, Hoi.

(The fact that I would lose the debate has nothing to do with my declination).

Elmo

No way! You give yourself far too little credit and me far too much!
No debate; just a link.

b322da wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:My life just got so much neater!

Oh no! To touch briefly on another thread, Hoi, my good buddy, I just looked up "culture."

Elmo

Score!

OK: challenge. Best google scholar reference to the intersection of culture and weapons ownership. We have until Friday morning at 9 to post it in the barbarian thread. Do you accept?

Skiprr wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote:One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

http://scholar.google.com/

Or, specifically, you can start with this.

It's really much the same as books.google.com, save that it indexes specific types of repositories and includes some court opinions, patents, theses, and the like.

My life just got so much neater!

GEM-Texas wrote:One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

johnferg69 wrote:WOW! Just proves the simplest things get complicated as soon as lawyers get involved. I'm reading this and more confused and pessimistic than ever. No wonder we can't get oc passed in this state, even the pro-gun crowd is trying to do each other in. I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded. The law may not be perfect, what law is, but you'd thing the least we could do is back it even if it needs tweaked later. You think the gun-grabbers would shelf a law prohibiting our rights because it wasn't perfect?
Just the thoughts of a lowly trashman!
(I know I'll get flamed, its ok! I have 2 exes, I'm used too it) LOL

Your position is that I shouldn't care about the wording or effect of a law, but should get behind it as long as it has people with good intent behind it?

That's a position I haven't heard since Congress explained why they couldn't read the Obamacare bill before it was passed. It was scary then and is scary now. Words have meanings and consequences, especially words that are codified into law. Anyone attempting to propose words which will affect the regulation and administration of justice to entire populations should recognize and respect that fact.

G.A. Heath wrote:For the first, If the bill passes as it currently is then 30.06 will apply to both. If the 30.06 provision is dropped from the bill and it passes then the second would apply.

As it is written now, a 30.06 is required to keep out open carry. If that provision is struck, any gunbuster sign will be sufficient for open carry while a 30.06 will be required for concealed carry. My question is if a 30.06 sign would be one of the many signs that would keep an OC out as well under the updated version. I ask this because the 30.06 sign says it applies to license holders, who will be the only people who OC under the updated version, too.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:So would a valid 30.06 ALSO prohibit open carry under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Correct.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jimlongley wrote:So, if there was 30.06 sign, but not a gun busters sign, OC would be OK but not CC?

Correct. Herein lies the danger in terms of the willingness of the legislature to require property owners to post two different signs. Two "big ugly signs" would never pass; but leaving 30.06 along and allow open-carriers to be subject to TPC §30.05 is hardly an onerous burden. The generic "no guns" decals are small, cheap, and easily applied.

Chas.

Is it me or are these answers contradictory? I'm reading one to say a valid 30.06 sign would prohibit open carry while the second response says it wouldn't prohibit it?

Teamless wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Not all OC'ers would be CHL'ers

I haven't had any coffee yet, but I think you would have to have a CHL to OC. Here's where I'm getting that from:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a
handgun to openly carry the handgun.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. (a) Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are
repealed.
(b) Section 411.171(3), Government Code, is repealed.
SECTION 2. Section 11.041(a), Alcoholic Beverage Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Each holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to
display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall
display in a prominent place on the permit holder's premises a sign
giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on
the premises unless the weapon is a [concealed] handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code.

So would a valid 30.06 ALSO prohibit open carry under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

Here is a link to the Bill. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment to TPC §30.06 is in Section 34 of the Bill. It makes a 30.06 sign applicable to open-carry; in fact, it would be required to prohibit open or concealed carry. This provision creates a worst case scenario for CHL's. There was no reason whatsoever to do this. Had this provision not been included, then any "no guns" sign would have been enough to ban open-carry, but prohibiting concealed-carry would still require a 30.06 sign. As currently written, if HB2756 passes, any business wanting to ban open-carry will have to ban concealed-carry as well.

Chas.

Thank you, kind sir!

I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?