TexasCHLforum.com

powerboatr wrote: ↑Tue May 25, 2021 1:11 pm

Vol Texan wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 5:54 pm It appears to have passed completely!
Now on to the governor’s desk.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927

hopefully the GOV signs it fast like he promised in the many tweets i get from him

He really doesn't need to sign it at all as long as he doesn't Veto it it becomes law. Like most of the new bills:

"SECTION 29. This Act takes effect September 1, 2021."

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:43 am

jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:26 am

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 8:55 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:23 am

Gunner4640 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:14 am This may have been asked but I can't find it.
What happens to LTC ? Is it going away?

Whats going to happen at gun purchases with background checks for people that have a LTC, is it going to be the wait again to buy?

This bill does nothing to the LTC program. It will be exactly the same (cost, requirements, benefits) as it was before. You still have to look for 30.06/7 and 51% signs, but can ignore pretty much any other anti-gun sign.

This will make it even more complicated. A lot of businesses still don't understand the 06/07 legalese like it is. So if you see an 06 sign, you can't carry with an LTC, but you can carry under the new law? To fix that, business will have to replace their current signage, or maybe add another sign to it, which will go over like a lead balloon.

I'm guessing if there is a 30.06 you can't carry under 30.05 because you are still an LTC holder and 30.06 applies to LTC holders.

I would say no because 30.06 says if you are carrying “under the authority” of your LTC. If that were the case then a peace officer with a LTC wouldn’t be able to carry either. If you really are worried about it then leave your LTC in the car. In order to carry under its authority you technically have to have it on your person.

Good point.

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 8:55 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:23 am

Gunner4640 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:14 am This may have been asked but I can't find it.
What happens to LTC ? Is it going away?

Whats going to happen at gun purchases with background checks for people that have a LTC, is it going to be the wait again to buy?

This bill does nothing to the LTC program. It will be exactly the same (cost, requirements, benefits) as it was before. You still have to look for 30.06/7 and 51% signs, but can ignore pretty much any other anti-gun sign.

This will make it even more complicated. A lot of businesses still don't understand the 06/07 legalese like it is. So if you see an 06 sign, you can't carry with an LTC, but you can carry under the new law? To fix that, business will have to replace their current signage, or maybe add another sign to it, which will go over like a lead balloon.

I'm guessing if there is a 30.06 you can't carry under 30.05 because you are still an LTC holder and 30.06 applies to LTC holders.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:21 pm

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 4:11 pm

ELB wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 3:44 pm IIRC that bill does not go back to either chamber to be voted on, it becomes the final bill that goes to the Governor. The RINO senators can quietly tell their supporters "Hey, I tried, but the committee cut out it out."

I don't know that this is the case, but I think it is at least plausible, and to be hoped for.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/legis ... rocess.pdf

Page 6 and 7 starting with "Return of a Bill to the Originating Chamber"

Long and short:
House concurs with Senate changes, on to the governor.
House doesn't concur, conference committee hashes out differences. BOTH chambers must approve conference committee changes for it to go on to the governor, if not bill is dead.

That is correct. Question will be on some of these amendments. If they are not found to be germane to the legislation, then the opposition can try to kill the bill on a point of order in the house. The house has different rules than the senate does. While I don't have an issue with a "free" online course offered by DPS, how does that relate to this bill. Schwertner himself was turning amendments away to keep this bill as small and simple as possible. At the very least, I suspect these amendments will cause a delay while the house attempts to resolve some procedural hurdles. Hopefully they can get over them. Many of these amendments should have either been stand alone legislation, or added onto another bill that was more closely related.

I think a reasonable case can be made relating the "free course" to the bill. One of the arguments for the bill that was made on the floor was removing hurdles, including cost, so the "free" part. How does a course relate at all. There was lots of discussion about personal responsibility to learn the law since the everyone would not be taking the mandated LTC course. So this course would presumably make it easier for someone taking personal responsibility and trying to read up on this stuff to learn. It's not much of a stretch to tie the things together.

Ruark wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:15 am

polekitty wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 8:36 am https://journals.senate.texas.gov/SJRNL ... -05-F2.PDF

I found this and hope the link works as I have attached one before. it starts with page 1214 and HB1927 starts on page 1222. it has all of the amendments voted on yesterday. Hope this helps.

On page 1232 it says:
"Amend HBi1927 (senate committee printing) by striking the recital to SECTION
17 of the bill (page 6, lines 9-11) and substituting the following:
SECTIONi17.iiSection 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsections
(c), (d-3), and (f-4) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to read as follows:
(c)iiA person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by
posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1)iiincludes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the
following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may
not enter this property with a firearm"


It just says, "with a firearm." Does this enable business owners to ban firearms without distinguishing between concealed and openly carried?

My understanding is that is correct for non LTC. It would be nice to get the sign language cleaned up here has papa_tiger pointed out. The "substantially similar" language is not a good direction for the signs. I also got nervous when someone opposed to the bill suggested that in future legislation they work to get the three signs down to one and Schwertner said that sounded like a good idea (that's my recollection of it anyway). I assume and hope that clearer fresher minds take care of this.

It's passed so this is old info at this point but I saw this quote from Patrick that shows a little on what must have been going on behind the scenes and the willingness to get this on the floor.

"Patrick told Dana Loesch, a radio host and former spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, that he needs the support of all 18 Senate Republicans to allow a vote on the bill.

When the legislation came over from the House last week, "I had maybe six in favor, about six against and six unsure," Patrick said. "We're now up to 12 votes, maybe 13. I'm still a few short, but I'm going to bring it to the floor. It's rare I do this. Usually when you don't have the votes, you don't bring a bill up that's going to lose, but this is an important issue.

"I'm optimistic and working to be sure we get those votes to be able to pass it out," he said."

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/20 ... 881199001/

Ahh, I didn't think they were going to suspend and do the 3rd tonight. Here we go again.

HB 1407 is still on the Calendar for tonight, not as big a deal but would be nice.

So third reading can again have debate and amendment as I understand it so not sure if we still have another marathon to get through and then of course conference committee and Governor but I'm assuming those last two should be fine.

This opt out amendment is the same argument made when the Open Carry bill was making it's way through the process.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm Anyone know what amendments 1-5 were?

I don't recall which one it was but one of these amendments removed an amendment that was put in by the House.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:45 pm

Grayling813 wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:43 pm Are they getting anywhere close to actually voting and passing a bill or just talking and posturing until time runs out?

Time doesn't run out until midnight. It would be unlikely that they can offer enough amendments to stop this from passing in some form today.

I think there are 27 or 28 amendments in total. Not sure about amendments to amendments that might pop up.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:36 pm Anyone know what amendments 1-5 were?

I don't recall what they were but I think it was 2 out of the 5 that were adopted and both that passed were put forward by the author (Schwertner).

I think he has 8 overall that he is putting forward.

For any just joining....as of 3:05 they are taking a break until 3:20 so you won't see anything on the video until then.

They step into a pit trying to discuss reasonable suspicion. They should just leave it at reading that legal definition he did once and stick to that. Just keep reading that.