If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

rtschl
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1244
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:50 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#16

Post by rtschl »

rtschl wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:20 pm
parabelum wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:06 am If this passes, what do you do with your current LTC? Frame it? I guess it is then useful in the reciprocity situation.
Would licensing then be optional? If there is no licensing, then you’d lose reciprocity unless you got one from another State, like FL or UT?
Agreed as some states with reciprocity agreements require a LTC (or their equivalent) from your state of residence.

Interesting other question is what about the Federal Gun Free Zone Act, which in part states:
"if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State"

So if someones does not have an LTC if Constitutional carry passes, is there no carrying within 1000 yards of a school?
Ron
NRA Member
User avatar

jmorris
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: La Vernia
Contact:

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#17

Post by jmorris »

rtschl wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:20 pm
parabelum wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:06 am If this passes, what do you do with your current LTC? Frame it? I guess it is then useful in the reciprocity situation.
Would licensing then be optional? If there is no licensing, then you’d lose reciprocity unless you got one from another State, like FL or UT?
Agreed as some states with reciprocity agreements require a LTC (or their equivalent) from your state of residence.

Interesting other question is what about the Federal Gun Free Zone Act, which in part states:
"if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State"

So without an LTC if Constitutional carry passes, is there no carrying within 1000 yards of a school?

That's the way I see it.. A LEO without a LTC can't carry within a GFZA so no license, no carry.
Jay E Morris,
Guardian Firearm Training, NRA Pistol, LTC < retired from all
NRA Lifetime, TSRA Lifetime
NRA Recruiter (link)
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#18

Post by ELB »

The gun free school zone act contains an exception for law-enforcement official Acting in his official capacity. I would be willing to bet my pocket change there has never ever been an arrest, never mind trial and conviction, of a law enforcement officer current through a school zone While off duty. All the arrests and convictions I’ve read about that made it to the appellate level have all been add on charges because the individual was caught doing something else majorly illegal, usually involving drugs and fleeing the police.

As for constitutionally carrying Joe Citizen, while it would probably be illegal for him to drive through a school zone, That is a federal law and the trend in the states that allow constitutional carry is to not enforce federal nuisance gun laws. I don’t think this is going to be a major threat until Joe gets enough for storm troopers to go guard each school zone.

The Leg still has a chance to fix this, they could statutorily declare each citizen is licensed by the state By virtue of being a resident of Texas and a non-prohibited person, And that any Identification accepted as sufficient for voting purposes would also serve as a license to carry. ;-)
USAF 1982-2005
____________

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#19

Post by chasfm11 »

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/04/15/tex ... arry-bill/

With this, Constitutional Carry appears much closer to reality. While it is not one of Lt.Gov. Patrick's legislative priorities, I cannot see him as being the one who doesn't get it past the Senate and I have a lot more problem imagining Gov. Abbott not signing it.

So back to the questions about what does it mean for LTC. I know that it doesn't mean that LTC in Texas goes away. But I'm trying to figure out how it handles he 30.06 question and it looks like it does it by redefining license holder. Here is what I'm looking at
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero

Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#20

Post by Papa_Tiger »

chasfm11 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:14 am https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/04/15/tex ... arry-bill/

With this, Constitutional Carry appears much closer to reality. While it is not one of Lt.Gov. Patrick's legislative priorities, I cannot see him as being the one who doesn't get it past the Senate and I have a lot more problem imagining Gov. Abbott not signing it.

So back to the questions about what does it mean for LTC. I know that it doesn't mean that LTC in Texas goes away. But I'm trying to figure out how it handles he 30.06 question and it looks like it does it by redefining license holder. Here is what I'm looking at
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0
If HB 1927 passes as written today:
30.05 trespass can be applied to anyone without a license with similar penalties as 30.06/7 (Class C misdemeanor unless you have been notified orally or receive "personal notice that is reasonable under the circumstances" and fail to depart at which point it becomes a class A).

30.06/7 signs do not go away and have the same force of law for license carriers as they do now with the same penalties as before, in other words, no changes from before.

The definition of "License Holder" is the same as it was before, the definition just moved locations in the code.

TPC 46.035 is repealed and much of the language that previously applied only to license holders was placed in 46.03. TPC 46.03 is now applicable to both licensed and unlicensed individuals including locations off limits by statute (none of which changed).
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#21

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

This may have already been answered but I can't find it. If a non licensed person is open carrying but is wearing a jacket that covers it, is this considered concealed? How would this person address this issue in the winter? Wear it over the jacket?

Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#22

Post by Papa_Tiger »

03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:48 am This may have already been answered but I can't find it. If a non licensed person is open carrying but is wearing a jacket that covers it, is this considered concealed? How would this person address this issue in the winter? Wear it over the jacket?
Either you have a license or you don't and either you can see the handgun or you can't. If you can see the handgun it is being openly carried, if you can't see the handgun, it is concealed.

Per my reading of the HB 1927, open carry applies to both licensed and unlicensed individuals with the addition of 46.02 (a-5)
HB 1927 - 46.02 (a-5) wrote:A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.
In other words, holstered handguns are OK. Un-holstered in public is an offense.

jerry_r60
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#23

Post by jerry_r60 »

ELB wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:57 pm The gun free school zone act contains an exception for law-enforcement official Acting in his official capacity. I would be willing to bet my pocket change there has never ever been an arrest, never mind trial and conviction, of a law enforcement officer current through a school zone While off duty. All the arrests and convictions I’ve read about that made it to the appellate level have all been add on charges because the individual was caught doing something else majorly illegal, usually involving drugs and fleeing the police.

As for constitutionally carrying Joe Citizen, while it would probably be illegal for him to drive through a school zone, That is a federal law and the trend in the states that allow constitutional carry is to not enforce federal nuisance gun laws. I don’t think this is going to be a major threat until Joe gets enough for storm troopers to go guard each school zone.

The Leg still has a chance to fix this, they could statutorily declare each citizen is licensed by the state By virtue of being a resident of Texas and a non-prohibited person, And that any Identification accepted as sufficient for voting purposes would also serve as a license to carry. ;-)
The solution of saying everyone is licenses may end reciprocity for the TX license. I recall part of the reciprocity concept in several states is that the licensing requirements of a reciprocal state is similar to their own. I'm not familiar what's been done with other states that have constitutional carry.
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#24

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

Papa_Tiger wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:17 am
03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:48 am This may have already been answered but I can't find it. If a non licensed person is open carrying but is wearing a jacket that covers it, is this considered concealed? How would this person address this issue in the winter? Wear it over the jacket?
Either you have a license or you don't and either you can see the handgun or you can't. If you can see the handgun it is being openly carried, if you can't see the handgun, it is concealed.

Per my reading of the HB 1927, open carry applies to both licensed and unlicensed individuals with the addition of 46.02 (a-5)
HB 1927 - 46.02 (a-5) wrote:A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.
In other words, holstered handguns are OK. Un-holstered in public is an offense.
I'm sorry. I was not real clear with my question. I was referring to what would be the rule if constitutional carry is passed. I am thinking a person open carrying with no LTC would be breaking the constitutional carry provision by having a jacket on that is covering his firearm.
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 9505
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#25

Post by RoyGBiv »

jerry_r60 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:31 am The solution of saying everyone is licenses may end reciprocity for the TX license. I recall part of the reciprocity concept in several states is that the licensing requirements of a reciprocal state is similar to their own. I'm not familiar what's been done with other states that have constitutional carry.
The TX license process will still exist. Reciprocity will not change.
Unlicensed carriers will not enjoy reciprocity when traveling out of Texas, licensed carriers reciprocal privileges will remain the same.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#26

Post by Papa_Tiger »

03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:00 am
Papa_Tiger wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:17 am
03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:48 am This may have already been answered but I can't find it. If a non licensed person is open carrying but is wearing a jacket that covers it, is this considered concealed? How would this person address this issue in the winter? Wear it over the jacket?
Either you have a license or you don't and either you can see the handgun or you can't. If you can see the handgun it is being openly carried, if you can't see the handgun, it is concealed.

Per my reading of the HB 1927, open carry applies to both licensed and unlicensed individuals with the addition of 46.02 (a-5)
HB 1927 - 46.02 (a-5) wrote:A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. It is an exception to the application of this subsection that the handgun was partially or wholly visible but was carried in a holster.
In other words, holstered handguns are OK. Un-holstered in public is an offense.
I'm sorry. I was not real clear with my question. I was referring to what would be the rule if constitutional carry is passed. I am thinking a person open carrying with no LTC would be breaking the constitutional carry provision by having a jacket on that is covering his firearm.
My response was addressing the situation if HB 1927 passes. HB 1927 does not proscribe that the handgun must be openly carried or carried in a concealed manner. It addresses "carrying of a firearm".
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 11451
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#27

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

I get it now. Thank you. I can be a bit thick when it comes to the finer technicalities of the laws.

jerry_r60
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#28

Post by jerry_r60 »

RoyGBiv wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:09 am
jerry_r60 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:31 am The solution of saying everyone is licenses may end reciprocity for the TX license. I recall part of the reciprocity concept in several states is that the licensing requirements of a reciprocal state is similar to their own. I'm not familiar what's been done with other states that have constitutional carry.
The TX license process will still exist. Reciprocity will not change.
Unlicensed carriers will not enjoy reciprocity when traveling out of Texas, licensed carriers reciprocal privileges will remain the same.
Right, I know. I was a only addressing the concept brought up in the post I quoted of having an additional law saying "everyone is license". The current bills don't do this but this concept was brought up in the post.
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#29

Post by ELB »

jerry_r60 wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:31 am
The solution of saying everyone is licenses may end reciprocity for the TX license. I recall part of the reciprocity concept in several states is that the licensing requirements of a reciprocal state is similar to their own. I'm not familiar what's been done with other states that have constitutional carry.
The current licensing system could still be left in place and serve for reciprocity.
USAF 1982-2005
____________

txmatt
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 2:27 am
Location: Bryan

Re: If Const. Carry passes, a signage question

#30

Post by txmatt »

I'm still not quite wrapping my head around the implications of HB 1927. Can anyone help clarify:

1. Does this mean that an LTC holder would be prohibited from carrying in an establishment with legal 30.06/30.07 signage, but someone with no license would be allowed to carry there?

2. Is there an equivalent sign giving legal notice for prohibiting people without an LTC from entering a building with a handgun?


I hope that constitutional carry would not lead to a situation where someone with a license could carry in fewer places than someone without. Also it would be undesirable for businesses to start posting 30.06 signs if that was what they thought they had to do to prohibit unlicensed people from carrying. I thought open carry was handled pretty well by creating a separate sign, would hope the same would be done here.
Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”