Page 19 of 26
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 7:05 am
by chamberc
Great and frankly unexpected good news.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 7:44 am
by Papa_Tiger
Flightmare wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:50 am
Just like churches, it was legal to carry in open meetings before....as long as did not receive notice under 30.06/30.07. This was one of the few exceptions carved out with SB 273 (fines for signs) from the 84th legislature. Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but it sounds like the signs might hold no more legal weight, but governments would not be penalized for posting them at open meetings. Which would definitely lead to some confusion. I'd welcome some smarter legal minds to weigh in on this.
411.209 was modified in HB 1927 to remove the references to TPC 46.035 as that portion of the penal code is repealed and many of the restrictions formerly in that section are now in 46.03.
411.209 prevents any government entity from posting 30.06/7 signs unless they are mentioned specifically in 46.03 or are a state-run hospital mentioned in Health and Safety Code 552.002.
In the now repealed 46.035, there was an exception that stated, like with churches, we had to receive notification via 30.06/7 for open meetings to be off limits to have effect. No similar provision allowing the posting of signs exists in the statute that will go into effect with HB 1927. In fact, HB 1927 states that TPC 46.03(a)(14) does not apply to persons carrying under the authority of their LTC. The net effect, in my interpretation (IANAL, this is not legal advice) is that an open meeting of a government agency cannot forbid LTC holders from carrying via any sign or notification but a person carrying without an LTC is prohibited by statute AND could be reminded via a 46.03 sign laid out in 46.15. A 46.03 sign would not run afoul of 411.209 as it does not apply to LTC holders, but a 30.06/7 sign would.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 10:47 am
by K.Mooneyham
Okay, for those in the know on these matters, it says that having an LTC is a "defense to prosecution" for violating 30.05. It's NOT an exemption from, then. It doesn't stop the police from arresting you nor does it stop a prosecutor from bringing a case against you. It only means that IF you are asked to leave a 30.05-posted business, the owner of that business calls the police on you, and you have your LTC, then you can bring that up IN COURT. In other words, it does not make you legally "immune" to 30.05, the way a police officer would be "immune" to 30.05/.06/.07 signs. Why would any business bother posting anything other than 30.05? They will no longer need to bother with 30.06/30.07 to keep you out even if you have your LTC. Am I misunderstanding how that works? Please, tell me I am. Because IF I am understanding this correctly, this is a big step backward.
EDITED TO ADD:
For instance, you walk past a 30.05 sign (only that one, no .06/.07) into a business. Your handgun is covered but somehow it shows a little at some point and the business owners see it and call police on you. You don't know that because the owners say nothing to you. The police arrive and say you're under arrest for the violation. You tell them (and show them) your LTC, and the police officer says "tell it to the court". You may "beat the rap" but you don't "beat the ride", AND you have to pay a bunch of money and also have an arrest record. I can think of one or two places where the scenario might play out.
EDITED TO ADD (2):
Seems to me that the following will need to be amended to the language of 30.05 in regards to those who have their LTC:
"It is an exception to the application of . . . ."
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 10:51 am
by NotRPB
I'm still concerned that NEW 30.05 signs which will restrict long arms will get posted where they currently are not so my tennis racket case containing my full auto bazooka with the bazillion billion round "clip" might be illegal to carry.
NOW After seeing the 30.06/30.07 sign i carry the longarm concealed, but will be prohibited when they all put up 30.05 signs at hospitals dr's offices etc. So, I'll be losing the right to protect myself with a firearm and will need to utilize other devices after the 30.05 sign goes up.
==============================
Prior to 30.07 my local hospital only had a no smoking sign & i carried concealed handgun legally
30.07 passed, they posted both 30.06 30.07 signs so i carried a concealed longarm legally
now they'll post all 3 signs and i'll have to carry tasers pepper sprays maybe a machete
unintended consequences ...
losing ground here folks in being able to carry fewer types of arms fewer places (Everything is a compromise) Next session can be cleanup time.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 11:02 am
by Papa_Tiger
If you have an interest in seeing the floor deliberations/discussion surrounding the adoption of the Conference Committee version of HB 1927, I've linked them below:
House - Starts at the 1:09:52 mark. Run-time: 44:48
https://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... p_id=20889
1:09:52 - Bill called up
1:10:10 - Point of order raised
1:35:00 - Point of order withdrawn
1:35:09 - Rep. Schaefer lays out the report
1:37:45 - Rep. Turner - speaking against the report
1:41:08 - Rep. Moody - speaking against the report
1:49:04 - Rep. Goodwin - speaking against the report
1:51:12 - Rep. Schaefer closing
1:54:14 - Record vote - 82 ayes - 62 nays, conference committee report is adopted
Senate - Starts at the 2:26:15 mark. Run-time 36:00
https://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPla ... p_id=16215
2:26:16 - Bill called up
2:26:44 - Sen. Schwertner recognized
2:29:02 - Sen. West - Questions of the author
2:32:55 - Sen. Huffman - Questions of the author
2:35:59 - Sen. Menendez - Questions of the author
2:43:21 - Sen. Whitmire - Questions of the author
2:52:34 - Sen. Lucio - Questions of the author
2:56:03 - Sen. Hinojosa - Questions of the author
3:01:51 - Sen. Schwertner moves adoption - record vote 17 ayes - 13 nays, conference committee report is adopted
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 11:32 am
by Papa_Tiger
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 10:47 am
Okay, for those in the know on these matters, it says that having an LTC is a "defense to prosecution" for violating 30.05. It's NOT an exemption from, then. It doesn't stop the police from arresting you nor does it stop a prosecutor from bringing a case against you. It only means that IF you are asked to leave a 30.05-posted business, the owner of that business calls the police on you, and you have your LTC, then you can bring that up IN COURT. In other words, it does not make you legally "immune" to 30.05, the way a police officer would be "immune" to 30.05/.06/.07 signs. Why would any business bother posting anything other than 30.05? They will no longer need to bother with 30.06/30.07 to keep you out even if you have your LTC. Am I misunderstanding how that works? Please, tell me I am. Because IF I am understanding this correctly, this is a big step backward.
EDITED TO ADD:
For instance, you walk past a 30.05 sign (only that one, no .06/.07) into a business. Your handgun is covered but somehow it shows a little at some point and the business owners see it and call police on you. You don't know that because the owners say nothing to you. The police arrive and say you're under arrest for the violation. You tell them (and show them) your LTC, and the police officer says "tell it to the court". You may "beat the rap" but you don't "beat the ride", AND you have to pay a bunch of money and also have an arrest record. I can think of one or two places where the scenario might play out.
EDITED TO ADD (2):
Seems to me that the following will need to be amended to the language of 30.05 in regards to those who have their LTC:
"It is an exception to the application of . . . ."
The LTC exception for 30.05 has always been a "defense to prosecution". Nothing changes in that regard for LTC holders with HB 1927. How many people do you hear of taking a ride for 30.05 related to handguns when they have an LTC?
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 11:39 am
by K.Mooneyham
Papa_Tiger wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:32 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 10:47 am
Okay, for those in the know on these matters, it says that having an LTC is a "defense to prosecution" for violating 30.05. It's NOT an exemption from, then. It doesn't stop the police from arresting you nor does it stop a prosecutor from bringing a case against you. It only means that IF you are asked to leave a 30.05-posted business, the owner of that business calls the police on you, and you have your LTC, then you can bring that up IN COURT. In other words, it does not make you legally "immune" to 30.05, the way a police officer would be "immune" to 30.05/.06/.07 signs. Why would any business bother posting anything other than 30.05? They will no longer need to bother with 30.06/30.07 to keep you out even if you have your LTC. Am I misunderstanding how that works? Please, tell me I am. Because IF I am understanding this correctly, this is a big step backward.
EDITED TO ADD:
For instance, you walk past a 30.05 sign (only that one, no .06/.07) into a business. Your handgun is covered but somehow it shows a little at some point and the business owners see it and call police on you. You don't know that because the owners say nothing to you. The police arrive and say you're under arrest for the violation. You tell them (and show them) your LTC, and the police officer says "tell it to the court". You may "beat the rap" but you don't "beat the ride", AND you have to pay a bunch of money and also have an arrest record. I can think of one or two places where the scenario might play out.
EDITED TO ADD (2):
Seems to me that the following will need to be amended to the language of 30.05 in regards to those who have their LTC:
"It is an exception to the application of . . . ."
The LTC exception for 30.05 has always been a "defense to prosecution". Nothing changes in that regard for LTC holders with HB 1927. How many people do you hear of taking a ride for 30.05 related to handguns when they have an LTC?
There were no official 30.05 SIGNS before. I can think of a couple of VERY anti-2A, anti-self-defense folks in this state that will almost assuredly be getting the word out (and twisting the information in the process) for businesses in their area to put those signs up, AND to call police if they see someone with a firearm.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 12:22 pm
by ScottDLS
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:39 am
Papa_Tiger wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:32 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 10:47 am
Okay, for those in the know on these matters, it says that having an LTC is a "defense to prosecution" for violating 30.05. It's NOT an exemption from, then. It doesn't stop the police from arresting you nor does it stop a prosecutor from bringing a case against you. It only means that IF you are asked to leave a 30.05-posted business, the owner of that business calls the police on you, and you have your LTC, then you can bring that up IN COURT. In other words, it does not make you legally "immune" to 30.05, the way a police officer would be "immune" to 30.05/.06/.07 signs. Why would any business bother posting anything other than 30.05? They will no longer need to bother with 30.06/30.07 to keep you out even if you have your LTC. Am I misunderstanding how that works? Please, tell me I am. Because IF I am understanding this correctly, this is a big step backward.
EDITED TO ADD:
For instance, you walk past a 30.05 sign (only that one, no .06/.07) into a business. Your handgun is covered but somehow it shows a little at some point and the business owners see it and call police on you. You don't know that because the owners say nothing to you. The police arrive and say you're under arrest for the violation. You tell them (and show them) your LTC, and the police officer says "tell it to the court". You may "beat the rap" but you don't "beat the ride", AND you have to pay a bunch of money and also have an arrest record. I can think of one or two places where the scenario might play out.
EDITED TO ADD (2):
Seems to me that the following will need to be amended to the language of 30.05 in regards to those who have their LTC:
"It is an exception to the application of . . . ."
The LTC exception for 30.05 has always been a "defense to prosecution". Nothing changes in that regard for LTC holders with HB 1927. How many people do you hear of taking a ride for 30.05 related to handguns when they have an LTC?
There were no official 30.05 SIGNS before. I can think of a couple of VERY anti-2A, anti-self-defense folks in this state that will almost assuredly be getting the word out (and twisting the information in the process) for businesses in their area to put those signs up, AND to call police if they see someone with a firearm.
The 46.15 "exceptions" that allow carry by LTC holders,
police officers, "travelers", hunting, etc. to carry handguns have ALWAYS been a defense to prosecution. Look carefully at the statute 46.15 and you'll find it doesn't say "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." either.
When the 46.15 section was drafted, the language used was not
exactly "it is exception to the application of <statute> that". The language was challenged and there was an appellate court finding that since that specific language wasn't used, all the 46.15 non-applicability provisions are only "defenses" as laid out in TXPC Chapter 2 "Burden of Proof".
If you have a "defense" to a particular statute, you have just as much assurance that what you are doing is legal as Texas LEO does for carrying a handgun.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 12:36 pm
by K.Mooneyham
ScottDLS wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:22 pm
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:39 am
Papa_Tiger wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 11:32 am
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 10:47 am
Okay, for those in the know on these matters, it says that having an LTC is a "defense to prosecution" for violating 30.05. It's NOT an exemption from, then. It doesn't stop the police from arresting you nor does it stop a prosecutor from bringing a case against you. It only means that IF you are asked to leave a 30.05-posted business, the owner of that business calls the police on you, and you have your LTC, then you can bring that up IN COURT. In other words, it does not make you legally "immune" to 30.05, the way a police officer would be "immune" to 30.05/.06/.07 signs. Why would any business bother posting anything other than 30.05? They will no longer need to bother with 30.06/30.07 to keep you out even if you have your LTC. Am I misunderstanding how that works? Please, tell me I am. Because IF I am understanding this correctly, this is a big step backward.
EDITED TO ADD:
For instance, you walk past a 30.05 sign (only that one, no .06/.07) into a business. Your handgun is covered but somehow it shows a little at some point and the business owners see it and call police on you. You don't know that because the owners say nothing to you. The police arrive and say you're under arrest for the violation. You tell them (and show them) your LTC, and the police officer says "tell it to the court". You may "beat the rap" but you don't "beat the ride", AND you have to pay a bunch of money and also have an arrest record. I can think of one or two places where the scenario might play out.
EDITED TO ADD (2):
Seems to me that the following will need to be amended to the language of 30.05 in regards to those who have their LTC:
"It is an exception to the application of . . . ."
The LTC exception for 30.05 has always been a "defense to prosecution". Nothing changes in that regard for LTC holders with HB 1927. How many people do you hear of taking a ride for 30.05 related to handguns when they have an LTC?
There were no official 30.05 SIGNS before. I can think of a couple of VERY anti-2A, anti-self-defense folks in this state that will almost assuredly be getting the word out (and twisting the information in the process) for businesses in their area to put those signs up, AND to call police if they see someone with a firearm.
The 46.15 "exceptions" that allow carry by LTC holders,
police officers, "travelers", hunting, etc. to carry handguns have ALWAYS been a defense to prosecution. Look carefully at the statute 46.15 and you'll find it doesn't say "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." either.
When the 46.15 section was drafted, the language used was not
exactly "it is exception to the application of <statute> that". The language was challenged and there was an appellate court finding that since that specific language wasn't used, all the 46.15 non-applicability provisions are only "defenses" as laid out in TXPC Chapter 2 "Burden of Proof".
If you have a "defense" to a particular statute, you have just as much assurance that what you are doing is legal as Texas LEO does for carrying a handgun.
Doesn't seem that way. In any event, the language should have been made EXPLICITLY clear that 30.05 signs apply ONLY to UN-licensed carry, and that LTC holders are exempt from those signs. Nothing would preclude a business owner (or their agent) from ASKING someone to leave or be considered trespassing, the way it is now. I am NOT against Constitutional Carry, I'm happy it passed for several reasons. However, I just think the wording doesn't set up things for success, I think it sets up situations for failure. I remember a man who was a member of this forum who got arrested because a security guard spotted his concealed handgun, and that situation at least had some impact on generating new language in the law to prevent such a thing from happening again...even though the intent for that to happen wasn't originally in the law. One of the things I learned in the Air Force is that if you want people to abide by regulations/rules, you need to make those regs/rules very clear and unambiguous. Gray areas are NOT a good thing when some people will exploit those areas against good people who made honest mistakes, or honestly thought they were complying.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 1:11 pm
by powerboatr
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 1:39 pm
by ScottDLS
K.Mooneyham wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:36 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 12:22 pm
...
The 46.15 "exceptions" that allow carry by LTC holders,
police officers, "travelers", hunting, etc. to carry handguns have ALWAYS been a defense to prosecution. Look carefully at the statute 46.15 and you'll find it doesn't say "It is an exception to the application of . . . ." either.
When the 46.15 section was drafted, the language used was not
exactly "it is exception to the application of <statute> that". The language was challenged and there was an appellate court finding that since that specific language wasn't used, all the 46.15 non-applicability provisions are only "defenses" as laid out in TXPC Chapter 2 "Burden of Proof".
If you have a "defense" to a particular statute, you have just as much assurance that what you are doing is legal as Texas LEO does for carrying a handgun.
Doesn't seem that way. In any event, the language should have been made EXPLICITLY clear that 30.05 signs apply ONLY to UN-licensed carry, and that LTC holders are exempt from those signs. Nothing would preclude a business owner (or their agent) from ASKING someone to leave or be considered trespassing, the way it is now. I am NOT against Constitutional Carry, I'm happy it passed for several reasons. However, I just think the wording doesn't set up things for success, I think it sets up situations for failure. I remember a man who was a member of this forum who got arrested because a security guard spotted his concealed handgun, and that situation at least had some impact on generating new language in the law to prevent such a thing from happening again...even though the intent for that to happen wasn't originally in the law. One of the things I learned in the Air Force is that if you want people to abide by regulations/rules, you need to make those regs/rules very clear and unambiguous. Gray areas are NOT a good thing when some people will exploit those areas against good people who made honest mistakes, or honestly thought they were complying.
I see what you are saying, but the Defense provided to LTC to 30.05 is the same as it has always been. Just because there is a specific format for the new 30.05 sign doesn't mean that the Defense is no longer available. You take the same "risk" as you would have previously carrying past a Circle Slash Beretta sticker.
I remember a man who was a member of this forum who got arrested because a security guard spotted his concealed handgun, and that situation at least had some impact on generating new language in the law to prevent such a thing from happening again...
If you're thinking of
Handog I think he was at the tax office or some other public property and the issue was that (before open carry) he unintentionally exposed his handgun briefly and the language was added to make it clear that unintentional exposure was not a crime.
The best thing the new law does is make it simply "not a crime" to carry a handgun most places, so you no longer have to have the Defense provided by LTC in 46.15. Peace Officers carrying in a school or racetrack or airport secure area, still only have a Defense to rely on for those activities.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 1:53 pm
by jerry_r60
He really doesn't need to sign it at all as long as he doesn't Veto it it becomes law. Like most of the new bills:
"SECTION 29. This Act takes effect September 1, 2021."
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 3:21 pm
by ELB
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 3:55 pm
by Soccerdad1995
oljames3 wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 6:05 pm
TrueFlog wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 6:00 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 4:04 pm
TrueFlog wrote: Mon May 24, 2021 3:54 pm
If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...
I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I hope that you're correct. However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet. Has this concept of when someone is or not carrying "under the authority of their LTC" been discussed on this board before? I'd be curious to see what opinions others have offered and whether there's any broad consensus on this idea.
Yes, the concept of carrying "under the authority of their LTC" has been discussed here before. However, that is just an interesting thought exercise. Until a case hinging on this concept is tried in court and that decision is appealed, we will not know what carrying "under the authority of their LTC" means. It is the appellate court decisions that become case law. After the governor signs the bill, I'll have a talk with my lawyer.
If case law evolves to say that a person is always carrying under the authority of their LTC if they happen to have an LTC, that would put Texas LEO's in an impossible situation, especially if they have young children. Either they don't get an LTC, and risk committing a crime every time they drop their kids off at school (or pick them up), or they get their LTC and commit a crime every time they enter a 30.07 posted business while they are in uniform.
That would be the biggest impact of a court ruling of this nature, especially since I'm assuming that most LE agencies would frown on their officers having illegal weapons offenses on their records.
Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now
Posted: Tue May 25, 2021 4:05 pm
by Grayling813
Assuming Gov. Abbott signs HB 1927
If he doesn't after saying he would, he is making the most serious political mistake of his career as he is about to start campaigning for re-election.
