TexasCHLforum.com

Below is a list of the bills that I was following over the course of the 86th Legislature related to firearms. Some of them directly impact LTCs, some of them impact things such as the school marshal program. Most of them seem to be pretty good and solid advancements for gun rights in the State of Texas. This list is by no means comprehensive as I did not do a search to find out if there were amendments that were tacked onto other bills that may impact our gun rights. I'll let Mr. Cotton and others who follow the Legislature more closely than I cover those. I'm eagerly looking forward to hearing Mr. Cotton's take on how this session went and if there are any other major items that I missed.

HB 121 - Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of trespass by certain persons carrying handguns.

HB 302 - Relating to the carrying, storage, or possession of a firearm or firearm ammunition by certain persons on certain residential or commercial property.

HB 1078 - Relating to waiving certain driver's license and handgun license fees for certain applicants who hold a certification in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

HB 1143 - Relating to the transportation or storage of a handgun or other firearm or ammunition by a handgun license holder in a school parking area.

HB 1168 - Relating to the offense of possessing a weapon in a secured area of an airport.

HB 1177 - Relating to carrying a handgun during a state of disaster.

HB 1387 - Relating to the number of school marshals that may be appointed to serve on a public school campus or at a private school.

HB 2137 - Relating to an application made by certain retired state and federal officers to obtain a license to carry a handgun; waiving a fee.

HB 2164 - Relating to imposing a civil penalty for prohibiting or otherwise restricting a peace officer or special investigator from carrying a weapon on certain premises open to the public.

HB 2195 - Relating to an active shooter emergency policy for school districts and required active shooter training for school district peace officers and school resource officers.

HB 2363 - Relating to permitting certain foster homes to store firearms and ammunition in the same locked location.

HB 3231 - Relating to the regulation of firearms, air guns, knives, ammunition, or firearm or air gun supplies or accessories by a county or municipality.

SB 317 - Relating to the taking of feral hogs without a hunting license.

SB 535 - Relating to the carrying of a handgun by a license holder on the premises of certain places of religious worship.

SB 741 - Relating to restrictive covenants regarding firearms or firearm ammunition.

Thanks for the list. I've been wondering about this.

Thanks for posting this.

I'd specifically like to know more about how HB 121 works. On the surface it appears that this will effectively render 30.06 signage null and void in most realistic scenarios. I'm already exempt as a VESP, but it would be nice to have yet another defense to prosecution. The only snag appears to be if a LTC holder (who is not exempt) walks past a 30.06 / 30.07 sign and IS NOT also given oral notice. However, I'd think that at a minimum, the responding LEO would give oral notice while doing their investigation. Maybe something like the following (assume CC):

LEO: "Sir, are you carrying a weapon"

LTC: "Why are you asking officer?"

LEO: "Those big signs by the doors make it illegal to carry in here."

LTC: "Oh, so I'm not allowed to carry here, even if I have my LTC?"

LEO: "That is correct, now I ask again, are you carrying a weapon?"

LTC: "Yes I am officer, and now that you have given me oral notice I will gladly depart immediately."

I think we have previously covered the fact that a LEO can give oral notice on behalf of a property owner. Of course, hopefully most property owners would just have the same conversation directly with the LTC instead of wasting LE resources.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 9:34 am Thanks for posting this.

I'd specifically like to know more about how HB 121 works. On the surface it appears that this will effectively render 30.06 signage null and void in most realistic scenarios. I'm already exempt as a VESP, but it would be nice to have yet another defense to prosecution. The only snag appears to be if a LTC holder (who is not exempt) walks past a 30.06 / 30.07 sign and IS NOT also given oral notice. However, I'd think that at a minimum, the responding LEO would give oral notice while doing their investigation. Maybe something like the following (assume CC):

LEO: "Sir, are you carrying a weapon"

LTC: "Why are you asking officer?"

LEO: "Those big signs by the doors make it illegal to carry in here."

LTC: "Oh, so I'm not allowed to carry here, even if I have my LTC?"

LEO: "That is correct, now I ask again, are you carrying a weapon?"

LTC: "Yes I am officer, and now that you have given me oral notice I will gladly depart immediately."

I think we have previously covered the fact that a LEO can give oral notice on behalf of a property owner. Of course, hopefully most property owners would just have the same conversation directly with the LTC instead of wasting LE resources.

This is intended to cover the case where there are no signs and the LTC holder was given oral communication to leave. With current law, they could still be prosecuted even if they promptly departed.

The way I'd interpret HB 121, if the person received

1) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they promptly depart, it is a class C, no defense. (Existing code)
2) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they do not promptly depart, it is a class A, no defense. (Existing code)
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)
4) Only oral communication, it is a class C, but they have a defense to prosecution if they promptly depart. (New with HB 121)

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:12 am ...
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)

The defense to prosecution for 30.06 and 30.07 simply states: "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01." It doesn't require the VESP to be engaging in their duties. PC 46.03 does require the VESP to be engaging in emergency services in order for the defense to apply. (The DPS summary on their website is wrong, or at least not fully correct).

ELB wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:58 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:12 am ...
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)

The defense to prosecution for 30.06 and 30.07 simply states: "It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the license holder is volunteer emergency services personnel, as defined by Section 46.01." It doesn't require the VESP to be engaging in their duties. PC 46.03 does require the VESP to be engaging in emergency services in order for the defense to apply. (The DPS summary on their website is wrong, or at least not fully correct).

That is my understanding as well. It would be a pretty meaningless exception otherwise since I'm assuming you could always argue necessity if you needed to run into a burning building (that was posted 30.06), to rescue a kid or otherwise respond to an emergency. This assumes that the property owner had the balls to press the issue of a possible $200 fine after you just helped them / their employees / their customers.

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:12 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 9:34 am Thanks for posting this.

I'd specifically like to know more about how HB 121 works. On the surface it appears that this will effectively render 30.06 signage null and void in most realistic scenarios. I'm already exempt as a VESP, but it would be nice to have yet another defense to prosecution. The only snag appears to be if a LTC holder (who is not exempt) walks past a 30.06 / 30.07 sign and IS NOT also given oral notice. However, I'd think that at a minimum, the responding LEO would give oral notice while doing their investigation. Maybe something like the following (assume CC):

LEO: "Sir, are you carrying a weapon"

LTC: "Why are you asking officer?"

LEO: "Those big signs by the doors make it illegal to carry in here."

LTC: "Oh, so I'm not allowed to carry here, even if I have my LTC?"

LEO: "That is correct, now I ask again, are you carrying a weapon?"

LTC: "Yes I am officer, and now that you have given me oral notice I will gladly depart immediately."

I think we have previously covered the fact that a LEO can give oral notice on behalf of a property owner. Of course, hopefully most property owners would just have the same conversation directly with the LTC instead of wasting LE resources.

This is intended to cover the case where there are no signs and the LTC holder was given oral communication to leave. With current law, they could still be prosecuted even if they promptly departed.

The way I'd interpret HB 121, if the person received

1) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they promptly depart, it is a class C, no defense. (Existing code)
2) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they do not promptly depart, it is a class A, no defense. (Existing code)
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)
4) Only oral communication, it is a class C, but they have a defense to prosecution if they promptly depart. (New with HB 121)

So, what about those places where they put up their .06/.07 signs in a manner that makes them difficult to see in the first place? We've all seen pictures of lettering on glass that is easily missed, for example. Now, before someone gets upset, as an LTC holder I tend to take a good look before I enter a place of business. However, anyone can miss signs that aren't well-engineered or are displayed poorly. So, if you actually never saw the sign, and then you were asked to leave, that would have been the only notice you received.

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:12 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 9:34 am Thanks for posting this.

I'd specifically like to know more about how HB 121 works. On the surface it appears that this will effectively render 30.06 signage null and void in most realistic scenarios. I'm already exempt as a VESP, but it would be nice to have yet another defense to prosecution. The only snag appears to be if a LTC holder (who is not exempt) walks past a 30.06 / 30.07 sign and IS NOT also given oral notice. However, I'd think that at a minimum, the responding LEO would give oral notice while doing their investigation. Maybe something like the following (assume CC):

LEO: "Sir, are you carrying a weapon"

LTC: "Why are you asking officer?"

LEO: "Those big signs by the doors make it illegal to carry in here."

LTC: "Oh, so I'm not allowed to carry here, even if I have my LTC?"

LEO: "That is correct, now I ask again, are you carrying a weapon?"

LTC: "Yes I am officer, and now that you have given me oral notice I will gladly depart immediately."

I think we have previously covered the fact that a LEO can give oral notice on behalf of a property owner. Of course, hopefully most property owners would just have the same conversation directly with the LTC instead of wasting LE resources.

This is intended to cover the case where there are no signs and the LTC holder was given oral communication to leave. With current law, they could still be prosecuted even if they promptly departed.

The way I'd interpret HB 121, if the person received

1) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they promptly depart, it is a class C, no defense. (Existing code)
2) Written communication (sign/card) AND oral communication and they do not promptly depart, it is a class A, no defense. (Existing code)
3) Only written communication (sign/card), it is a class C, no defense (except VSP engaging in their duties per DPS guidelines). (Existing code)
4) Only oral communication, it is a class C, but they have a defense to prosecution if they promptly depart. (New with HB 121)

So, what about those places where they put up their .06/.07 signs in a manner that makes them difficult to see in the first place? We've all seen pictures of lettering on glass that is easily missed, for example. Now, before someone gets upset, as an LTC holder I tend to take a good look before I enter a place of business. However, anyone can miss signs that aren't well-engineered or are displayed poorly. So, if you actually never saw the sign, and then you were asked to leave, that would have been the only notice you received.

Since the law requires that the signs be posted in a conspicuous manner, I think these signs would not meet the legal signage requirements, hence oral notice still being the first, and only, notice received. Same result, but a slightly different reasoning.

I'm thinking of cases I have seen like a 30.06 with white lettering on clear glass in front of a white background and as far from the door as they could possibly get. The Kate Spade outlet in New Braunfels has this particular sign. I'll snap a pic if I'm ever back up that way.

Did you catch HB 446?
Apparently Gov Abbott signed it this last week, takes effect Sep 1st.

It was initially reported as removing “illegal weapons” such as blackjacks, clubs, and knuckles from the list of illegal weapons, but I’m not sure what the final language ended up being.

Shalafein wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 1:07 pm Did you catch HB 446?
Apparently Gov Abbott signed it this last week, takes effect Sep 1st.

It was initially reported as removing “illegal weapons” such as blackjacks, clubs, and knuckles from the list of illegal weapons, but I’m not sure what the final language ended up being.

This link is to the enrolled version of HB446:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... navpanes=0

Shalafein wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 1:07 pm Did you catch HB 446?
Apparently Gov Abbott signed it this last week, takes effect Sep 1st.

It was initially reported as removing “illegal weapons” such as blackjacks, clubs, and knuckles from the list of illegal weapons, but I’m not sure what the final language ended up being.

Not firearms related, so not captured here, but definitely of interest.

Shalafein wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 1:07 pm Did you catch HB 446?
Apparently Gov Abbott signed it this last week, takes effect Sep 1st.

It was initially reported as removing “illegal weapons” such as blackjacks, clubs, and knuckles from the list of illegal weapons, but I’m not sure what the final language ended up being.

Discussed in this thread: https://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php ... lit=HB+446

Hmmm....

As I understand it, it doesn't matter whether there's a sign or not; if you receive verbal or written notice, you have to leave, period.

Still, can an LEO walk up and ask if you're carrying a weapon, based solely on noticing a slight bulge under your shirt? Seems like that would be illegal search or something.

Ruark wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 5:34 pm Hmmm....

As I understand it, it doesn't matter whether there's a sign or not; if you receive verbal or written notice, you have to leave, period.

Still, can an LEO walk up and ask if you're carrying a weapon, based solely on noticing a slight bulge under your shirt? Seems like that would be illegal search or something.

During a consensual encounter, you are under no obligation to answer any questions from a LEO.

SB 772 - Relating to evidence in certain civil actions of a person's failure to forbid handguns on certain property.

This is something that has been wanted for a while I believe.

HB 1791 - Relating to the carrying of handguns by license holders on property owned or leased by a governmental entity.

This is beneficial also.