Constitutional Carry Guide

[K.Mooneyham]

As an LTC holder, will I be able to define when and I carrying on the authority of the license, and when I'm carrying on the authority of constitutional carry? How to I define that, by being in possession of the license or not? Like leaving it in the car when I see a 30.06 sign, etc?

This is a relatively simple question to answer when the only authority you have is your LTC or the new law. It is not you defining between the two possible authorities, it is the law. The law (P.C. 46.15(b)(6) says that you are carrying under your LTC when you would otherwise be violating section 46.02. It does this by saying 46.02 does not apply when you have the license and are carrying a handgun on or about your person. If you behavior would not violate 46.02, then you are not carrying under the authority of your LTC. If you have some other authority under 46.15(b), such as traveling or hunting, it might be a little more confusing but they don't give you any more authority than the LTC so it isn't too hard.

The question only really becomes confusing when you have two more authorities besides the law itself. For example, if you are a retired peace officer that also has an LTC, then which you are carrying under becomes more confusing. One of the reasons I got my LTC was to cover the one weird circumstance where my retired LEO certification would not apply. If I had gone into a business that had a 30.05 sign, it would have applied to me because the exception in that law only applies to active officers. But it also doesn't apply to LTCs, so if that ever happens, I am carrying under the authority of my LTC. Everywhere else, the law doesn't apply because I am carrying under the authority of my retired LEO ID.

My basic logic is that if I am not violating the law, then I am carrying under the authority of the law. If my actions would violate a law, and I have multiple authorities that apply, then it doesn't matter which I claim because I am covered. And if I am violating a law but one of my multiple authorities would cover it and make me legal, then I am carrying under that authority. None of the authorities int he law say they are exclusive of other authorities, so I can cite whichever applies at the time as I need it.

That is an interesting concept and one that I hadn't thought about in the least. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm just an aircraft mechanic, so I miss a lot of the subtleties of the law. Aircraft rules and regulations are somewhat more cut and dried. Maybe the concept you described will negate some of the scenarios I described in my earlier reply on this post. That said, I still think that it all could be worded a bit clearer for the typical citizen to understand.

[TxRVer]

All of this talk about entering a business that posts 30.06/07 but not 30.05 reminds me of discussions after the passing of open carry. Remember all the talk about being able to enter OC when 30.06 was posted but not 30.07? How did that pan out?

[Papa_Tiger]

All of this talk about entering a business that posts 30.06/07 but not 30.05 reminds me of discussions after the passing of open carry. Remember all the talk about being able to enter OC when 30.06 was posted but not 30.07? How did that pan out?

And per the handout from [Prepaid legal service], the giant Gun Buster watermark on the most common 30.06/7 signs would serve as notice against unlicensed carry. So I think it amounts to a tempest in a teapot.

[TxRVer]

All of this talk about entering a business that posts 30.06/07 but not 30.05 reminds me of discussions after the passing of open carry. Remember all the talk about being able to enter OC when 30.06 was posted but not 30.07? How did that pan out?

And per the handout from [Prepaid legal service], the giant Gun Buster watermark on the most common 30.06/7 signs would serve as notice against unlicensed carry. So I think it amounts to a tempest in a teapot.

Common sense should tell you that a 30.6/7 sign will get you removed if you carry under constitutional carry.

[jerry_r60]

All of this talk about entering a business that posts 30.06/07 but not 30.05 reminds me of discussions after the passing of open carry. Remember all the talk about being able to enter OC when 30.06 was posted but not 30.07? How did that pan out?

And per the handout from [Prepaid legal service], the giant Gun Buster watermark on the most common 30.06/7 signs would serve as notice against unlicensed carry. So I think it amounts to a tempest in a teapot.

This is an interesting point regarding the "gun buster" on a 30.07 or 30.06. I'm guessing the fact that it's on a 30.06 or 30.07 doesn't mean it can't serve as the 30.05 notice per this document. So by design of most 30.06 or 30.07 signs, they also double as 30.05. That also takes away the argument of carrying under the authority of constitutional carry to get past an .06/.07.

With this said, I see this document says a "gunbuster" does block unlicensed carry however I don't see how this squares with the language in the bill. While 30.05 uses the language "substantially similar too..." it has specific verbiage, text size etc. I don't see how a gunbuster could be perceived as "substantially similar too" to a reasonable person.

I'm curious how the Legal Defense folks arrived at their conclusion regarding the signs.

[chasfm11]

Is any of this different than walking past a non-compliant 30.06 sign? In the final analysis, it is going to take some other circumstance to bring the situation to light and end up forcing a legal interpretation. I always thought that I was skating on thin ice when I walked past an 8.5x11 version of the sign and think that the gray areas on the new law are probably the same. Someone may end up spending big bucks to put a finer point on the language but since that hasn't happened with the non-compliant signs in more than 20 year, either because no one noticed or because very few people were willing to push the limits, the chances of it happening over these new situations are not very high.

I'll go further. The whole matter of Constitutional Carry is a tempest in a tea pot. There may be a small uptick in people carrying concealed without an LTC but I don't believe even that will be sustained. Nearly half the LTC population (if you believe the anecdotal evidence based on police traffic stops) doesn't carry after going to much greater lengths to have the legal option to do so. There may be one or two unlicensed carriers that get themselves into trouble and make the evening news. Otherwise, six months from now, it will be no different than open carry or campus carry. People will go about their business. Texas has a bigger population than any of the other Constitutional Carry States but I don't see the Texas population creating any more problems than the residents of the other States did.

[03Lightningrocks]

I'll go further. The whole matter of Constitutional Carry is a tempest in a tea pot. There may be a small uptick in people carrying concealed without an LTC but I don't believe even that will be sustained. Nearly half the LTC population (if you believe the anecdotal evidence based on police traffic stops) doesn't carry after going to much greater lengths to have the legal option to do so. There may be one or two unlicensed carriers that get themselves into trouble and make the evening news. Otherwise, six months from now, it will be no different than open carry or campus carry. People will go about their business. Texas has a bigger population than any of the other Constitutional Carry States but I don't see the Texas population creating any more problems than the residents of the other States did.

This is what I think will happen also. I personally know people who have an LTC and don't carry on a regular basis. I think the same will happen with constitutional carry.

[ScottDLS]

My reading of the new (soon to be) law is that if a location, normally open to the public wants to make use of trespass law to bar (certain) people from carrying on their premises, they will need to post 3 signs, the new 30.05 for permitless carry, and 30.06/7 for LTC carry. If they don't post the new 30.05 sign then anyone eligible under permitless carry, or who is not carrying under the authority of their LTC, or who doesn't have a LTC, may carry, even if they have a 30.06/7.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and high minded speeches about the grand Texas tradition of private property owner rights and signs and, castles, ranches, #MuhProperty, and hanging of armed cattle rustlers and horse thieves. All of which is theater, with virtually no relevant precedent in the last 100+ years of Texas criminal law, and with even less current statutory support.

If you come upon a location while carrying that is posted 30.06/7, but not 30.05 and you're not a Peace Officer, or (federal) Special Investigator, or Volunteer Emergency Responder, AND you otherwise qualify for permitless carry, then you still could legally carry. If you happen to have a LTC, it presumably wouldn't matter, because you wouldn't be carrying under its authority, any more than a cop or Fed who happened to have one would be.

It's clear that they don't want me carrying if they post 30.06/7, but no 30.05? I don't care. It's not illegal, so I'm going to do what I please. I don't want them to vote Democrat either, but if I put up a circle slash donkey sign on my business, I still don't expect the Denton County Sheriff to come and arrest someone wearing a Hillary for America T-shirt for coming into my MAGA swag store.

Will there be "test cases" and people taking "the ride" and Soros DA's and malicious prosecutions and felony arrest records in our future. My opinion, no. But, I don't care. They won't catch me. When I carry where it is legal, but I think someone doesn't want me to, I conceal. If some prepaid legal service or 25 year old AG opinion says my carry is is not legal even when the statute clearly say it IS legal...I DON'T CARE. They will have to catch me and I will not make it easy.

[Scott in Houston]

Have the penalties did carrying past a sign remained the same?
Basically it’s just a ticket unless in a restricted place under 46.03…

[RoyGBiv]

I just got this guide from [Pre-paid legal service]. I still have questions.

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/ ... igital.pdf

There is no mention if the "Unlicensed Possession" blue sign will still be posted at all businesses that sell alcoholic beverages. Will this go away to allow Constitutional carry there? The guide also says the 3006 sign is binding on LTC holder's but not binding on Constitutional carry persons.

Well done document. Thanks for sharing.