TexasCHLforum.com

The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

tlt wrote:Feeling a bit of buyers remorse now, that I read through some of this thread again. I am sorry this didn't happen. I know it has been a big priority for a long time. How can we make it a winning priority next session. Will there be an analysis, somewhere if not here.

The political resources were spent on OC & CC this legislature. Nothing was left for HB308. With those 2 bills out of the way, I feel like a similar bill to HB308 should be TOP PRIORITY for the next legislative session. Here's hoping & praying

KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.

RoyGBiv wrote:I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.

Given that there wasn't even enough support to pass HB910 with the Huffines/Dutton amendment included, it's pretty much guaranteed that unlicensed carry is DOA for the next 5-10 years. No doubt the mental midgets in OCT will conclude that if they just carry a few more AK-47s in public the needed support for unlicensed carry will magically appear.

RoyGBiv wrote:

KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.

It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm happy to wait on unlicensed carry as long as my rights when carrying expand even though I would need a license.

I should not have to disarm in order to walk into a 51% bar and deliver papers early in the day when the place is not even open.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to the post office.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to IKEA.

RoyGBiv wrote:

KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.

Regardless of whether they have any political clout, we've already seen that it is possible to cause significant heartburn simply by using in-your-face tactics. This could easily have enough negative impact to overshadow the next iteration of HB308. A lot of political capital could be spent simply doing damage control and distancing that proposed legislation from those who would be trying to get all of the spotlight.

KC5AV wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.

Regardless of whether they have any political clout, we've already seen that it is possible to cause significant heartburn simply by using in-your-face tactics. This could easily have enough negative impact to overshadow the next iteration of HB308. A lot of political capital could be spent simply doing damage control and distancing that proposed legislation from those who would be trying to get all of the spotlight.

I deleted the second paragraph of my previous post before hitting submit.... but it went something like this...

If the OCT/OCTC folks continue their in-your-face tactics, licensed carry advocates would have an easy time creating distance and using that contrast to expand privileges for licensed carriers. It's certainly NOT what I want to do, but if the unlicensed OC crowd is going to blow up their own house, I'm ok with making a bonfire and roasting marshmallows out of the pieces.

nobius wrote:It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm happy to wait on unlicensed carry as long as my rights when carrying expand even though I would need a license.

I should not have to disarm in order to walk into a 51% bar and deliver papers early in the day when the place is not even open.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to the post office.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to IKEA.

Bar: I totally agree. Open or not. As long as you're not intoxicated.
PO: That's federal. Talk to Congress.
IKEA: I don't see 30.06 going away. Texas is big on rights of private property owners.

Here's mine:
I should not have to disarm in order to visit my sons' public schools and leave a weapon in an unoccupied car, where I believe it's potentially more dangerous than concealed on my person.

The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

viking1000 wrote:The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.
Carrying into a PO is a violation of Federal law, even if there is no sign.

You CAN carry into a Contract Postal Unit.... a PO inside a regular retail store that is not owned by or operated directly by a Federal employee.

See 18 US Code §930

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.

RoyGBiv wrote:

viking1000 wrote:The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.
Carrying into a PO is a violation of Federal law, even if there is no sign.

You CAN carry into a Contract Postal Unit.... a PO inside a regular retail store that is not owned by or operated directly by a Federal employee.

See 18 US Code §930

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.

18 USC 930

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Also not legal advice.

mr1337 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

viking1000 wrote:The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.
Carrying into a PO is a violation of Federal law, even if there is no sign.

You CAN carry into a Contract Postal Unit.... a PO inside a regular retail store that is not owned by or operated directly by a Federal employee.

See 18 US Code §930

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.

18 USC 930

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

Also not legal advice.

Hmmmm.... Interesting.

"no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be."

Underlined part would worry me. You would know it's a federal facility, would you therefore have "actual notice?"

Also, "(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

Could concealed carry not be a "lawful purpose?"

CJD wrote:"no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be."

Underlined part would worry me. You would know it's a federal facility, would you therefore have "actual notice?"

Also, "(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

Could concealed carry not be a "lawful purpose?"

It would depend on whether "lawful purpose" includes what's lawful under state law, or only what's lawful under federal law. I'm guessing it's the latter.

CJD wrote:"no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be."

Underlined part would worry me. You would know it's a federal facility, would you therefore have "actual notice?"

According to Nolo, "Actual notice occurs when an individual is directly told about something". Under that interpretation, the quoted section of the law would mean it's only an offense if a sign is posted or you're given verbal notification. (Essentially the same as our 30.06 law, but without the requirement for specific language on the sign)
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/actual-notice-term.html