Search found 5 matches

by RottenApple
Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:43 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 56 filed with text
Replies: 23
Views: 5316

Re: HB 56 filed with text

jerry_r60 wrote: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.
by RottenApple
Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:00 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 56 filed with text
Replies: 23
Views: 5316

Re: HB 56 filed with text

denwego wrote: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? :headscratch
by RottenApple
Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:27 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 56 filed with text
Replies: 23
Views: 5316

Re: HB 56 filed with text

2firfun50 wrote:I don't see anything that lines out or repeals the rest of 30.06. The way I read it, the rest of 30.06 would remain intact Only 30.06(a) is being amended. Small (b) and (c) would be untouched. Like I said, I'm just an engineer and not good with legalese. :tiphat:
I see what you are getting at, but I believe you may be mistaken. Take a look at the "modified" 30.06 and the current 30.06:

Modified:
SECTION 45. Section 30.06(a), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
Current:
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on t he property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on t he property with a concealed handgun was
forbidden and failed to depart.
They are identical. So the only modification this bill could possibly mean is the elimination of everything after (B). :tiphat:
by RottenApple
Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:00 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 56 filed with text
Replies: 23
Views: 5316

Re: HB 56 filed with text

2firfun50 wrote:I'm not very good with this legalese way of writing things. Would the addition of 30.07 require posting on every entrance for both 30.06 and 30.07, or just 30.07? I know folks get nervous when any changes to 30.06 are discussed, but a change to require posting at every entrance seems like a good one.

Another question. Would an establishment have to post both 30.06 and 30.07? That would create one REALLY BIG ugly sign if done properly "rlol"
You're kind of missing it. If this passes (it won't), there won't BE a 30.06 sign any more. A simple gun buster will suffice to keep you out.
SECTION 45. Section 30.06(a), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of
Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property with a concealed
handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
That will be the new 30.06. See anything in there about sign or language requirements? Nope. Me either. And that's the problem.

Here is the new section that ONLY deals with prohibiting open carry:
SECTION 46. Chapter 30, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 30.07 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.07. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY
UNCONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if
the license holder:
(1) openly carries a handgun in an unconcealed manner
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that:
(A) entry on the property by a license holder
openly carrying an unconcealed handgun was forbidden; or
(B) remaining on the property while openly
carrying an unconcealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice
if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to
act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written
communication.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.07,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry an unconcealed
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code, may not enter this property with an unconcealed
handgun that is carried openly";
or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by
Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with
block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section
that the property on which the license holder openly carries the
unconcealed handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and
is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is
prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.
So this bill would make gun busters enforceable for those who conceal ( :banghead: ), and create a Big Ugly Sign for those who open carry ( :thumbs2: ).

I'd be willing to settle for leaving 30.06 alone and adding the new 30.07. But this....bill.....is not a good thing. Good thing it doesn't stand a chance of passing (I hope).
by RottenApple
Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:07 pm
Forum: 2013 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 56 filed with text
Replies: 23
Views: 5316

Re: HB 56 filed with text

MeMelYup wrote:It deletes 30.06, adds 30.07 with same requirements as current 30.06 with open carry.
This is baaaaad!!!
I don't have a problem with the creation of the 30.07 sign since it only applies to OC. But when will these jokers learn to LEAVE 30.06 ALONE!?!?!? :banghead:

Return to “HB 56 filed with text”