OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again

[KC5AV]

Doesn't 30.06 refer only to licensed concealed handguns?

If open carry passes in Texas, 30.06 will probably be amended to cover openly carried weapons as well.

[pbwalker]

Can we possibly create a 30.06.1 and require pink and orange neon posters, greater than 3' x 4' with 2" letters in English, Cantonese, Spanish, Latin, Gaelic, and Inuktitut?

[Oldgringo]

Can we possibly create a 30.06.1 and require pink and orange neon posters, greater than 3' x 4' with 2" letters in English, Cantonese, Spanish, Latin, Gaelic, and Inuktitut?

No. What will happen is that the 30.06 will be abolished and a simple "gunbusters" sign will be notice to all - as it is in many other states.

Why are so many always trying to fix things that aren't broken?

[pbwalker]

Can we possibly create a 30.06.1 and require pink and orange neon posters, greater than 3' x 4' with 2" letters in English, Cantonese, Spanish, Latin, Gaelic, and Inuktitut?

No. What will happen is that the 30.06 will be abolished and a simple "gunbusters" sign will be notice to all - as it is in many other states.

Why are so many always trying to fix things that aren't broken?

well aware...it was just a joke.

[ScottDLS]

Since we're all having fun with this topic...

The easiest path to open carry in Texas would likely be to strike PC 46.035(a) from the code and strike the word concealed from 46.15(b)(6).

PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

That's it...done...now you have licensed open carry.

30.06 doesn't magically change (it doesn't say anything about concealed anyway), no new signs required...gunbusters aren't immediately valid notice. 30.05 doesn't change...It's simply no longer a crime to fail to conceal while carrying under authority of your CHL.

I suppose for consistency sake GC 411 could be updated to change the name to Handgun Carry License and change language around "concealed".

We already have some open carry in Texas...

Open carry to/from sporting activity.
Open carry on property under your control.
Open carry while traveling (whatever "traveling" is).
Commissioned security officer open carry.
Peace officer open carry.
Open carry rifles and shotguns.

I see licensed carry as I described as the quickest way to OC.

[jsimmons]

That's because you don't understand that the state is the people. Convince the people and the state will change. The recent elections should have made that obvious.

The only thing that has been made obvious is that nobody was happy with the legislators in Washington - and that spilled over into Texas (and other states). Politicians are not interested in what their constituents want, and that has been proven time and again (the most recent example is the recent election results), and STILL they don't get it.

[jsimmons]

Open carry rifles and shotguns.

Not in San Antonio...

[Keith B]

Open carry rifles and shotguns.

Not in San Antonio...

Sure you can. The ordinance is not valid due to state preemption on firearms laws. Will you be hassled and maybe arrested? Probably, but after you fight it and win, you can file an 1983 Civil Rights Suit. Just depends on how much you are willing to fight it.

However, I am 95% sure if they passed OC in Texas that they would have to make a compromise with the cities and remove the preemption on carrying of ANY openly carried firearm. Then the ordinance would be valid, as well as prohibit any handgun open carry.

[tboesche]

Since we're all having fun with this topic...

Open carry while traveling (whatever "traveling" is).

If you are referring to the Motorist Protection Act, then this is false. The gun HAS to be concealed

[Pawpaw]

Open carry rifles and shotguns.

Not in San Antonio...

Sure you can. The ordinance is not valid due to state preemption on firearms laws. Will you be hassled and maybe arrested? Probably, but after you fight it and win, you can file an 1983 Civil Rights Suit. Just depends on how much you are willing to fight it.

However, I am 95% sure if they passed OC in Texas that they would have to make a compromise with the cities and remove the preemption on carrying of ANY openly carried firearm. Then the ordinance would be valid, as well as prohibit any handgun open carry.

Nope. Won't work. That would require more than a law... it would require changing the state constitution.

[Keith B]

Open carry rifles and shotguns.

Not in San Antonio...

Sure you can. The ordinance is not valid due to state preemption on firearms laws. Will you be hassled and maybe arrested? Probably, but after you fight it and win, you can file an 1983 Civil Rights Suit. Just depends on how much you are willing to fight it.

However, I am 95% sure if they passed OC in Texas that they would have to make a compromise with the cities and remove the preemption on carrying of ANY openly carried firearm. Then the ordinance would be valid, as well as prohibit any handgun open carry.

Nope. Won't work. That would require more than a law... it would require changing the state constitution.

I disagree. Article 1, § 23 of the Texas Constitution states: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

states “[a] municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.” Section 229.001(a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:Require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose;

Regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;

Regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality’s fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of section 229.001(a);

Regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety (this exception does not authorize the seizure or confiscation of firearms or ammunition from any person in lawful possession of firearms or ammunition; see section 229.001(d));

Regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Texas law at: 1) a public park; 2) a public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body; 3) a political rally, parade or official political meeting; or 4) a non-firearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event. (This exception does not apply if the firearm is in or carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity. Section 229.001(c). The Attorney General has interpreted this exception to mean that municipalities are prohibited from regulating the carrying of concealed handguns in city parks by persons licensed to carry a handgun. SeeTex. Op. Att'y Gen. DM-364 (1995), 1995 Tex. AG LEXIS 94, *10-11).

So, this means that it only applies to CHL per the AG's Opinion, and could in turn the law would not prohibit municipalities from precluding Open Carry as such time they would potentially allow it at the state level.

EDIT TO ADD: After reading this, I am not sure that my statement above about the San Antonio ordinance prohibiting the carry of long guns is invalid. it may well be enforceable due to the wording in the Preemption Rule of Texas Local Government Code Annotated § 229.001(a)

[ScottDLS]

Since we're all having fun with this topic...

Open carry while traveling (whatever "traveling" is).

If you are referring to the Motorist Protection Act, then this is false. The gun HAS to be concealed

I'm not. MPA has nothing to do with traveling (any more).

[ScottDLS]

...
So, this means that it only applies to CHL per the AG's Opinion, and could in turn the law would not prohibit municipalities from precluding Open Carry as such time they would potentially allow it at the state level.
...

This is why I suggested legalizing licensed open carry via changes to 46.035 and 46.15. Cities would then be precluded from regulating open carry by CHL the same way they are precluded from regulating CHL concealed carry today. The State Constitution grants regulation of "wearing of arms" to the legislature and via pre-emption statute the legislature only delegates certain parts of that authority to the cities.

EDIT TO ADD: After reading this, I am not sure that my statement above about the San Antonio ordinance prohibiting the carry of long guns is invalid. it may well be enforceable due to the wording in the Preemption Rule of Texas Local Government Code Annotated § 229.001(a)

I think it is invalid with the exception of the specific locations specified in 229.001(b)(6)...

(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental
body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic
event.

[Purplehood]

Since we're all having fun with this topic...

Open carry while traveling (whatever "traveling" is).

If you are referring to the Motorist Protection Act, then this is false. The gun HAS to be concealed

I'm not. MPA has nothing to do with traveling (any more).

I thought that it technically still did, but it was really a moot point now with the rewording/definitions of travelling.

[Keith B]

Since we're all having fun with this topic...

Open carry while traveling (whatever "traveling" is).

If you are referring to the Motorist Protection Act, then this is false. The gun HAS to be concealed

I'm not. MPA has nothing to do with traveling (any more).

I thought that it technically still did, but it was really a moot point now with the rewording/definitions of travelling.

Traveling is still listed in 46.15 (b) (2) in non applicability and doesn't state (like MPA) that the weapon has to be out of sight. However, with MPA in effect, I would think that they would refer back to that as the newer of the statutes and claim it had to be concealed.