TexasCHLforum.com

thechl wrote:In my little town there are unlawful 30.06 signs on virtually all the municipal buildings. When I told a police officer about preemption of state law he assured me the signs were allowed 'to afford public safety.' So my suspicion is 30.07 signs will soon join the force. Unless, of course, SB 273/HB 226 get passed, including an amendment to cover 30.07. Indeed, I suspect those bills are being held in anticipation of the need for the 30.07 amendment.

Open Carry will be interesting for a while, throughout Texas, in cities big and small.

K5GU wrote:I hope it doesn't happen this way, but I suspect when OC becomes law there will be 9-1-1 callers in cahoots with the actors open carrying so they can get on the news, YooToob, etc. to make their obstructive anti OC points.

Are there any "malicious 911 calls" laws on the books in Texas?

Texas Penal Code wrote:Sec. 42.06. FALSE ALARM OR REPORT. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless and that would ordinarily:
(1) cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, or aircraft, automobile, or other mode of conveyance.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the false report is of an emergency involving a public or private institution of higher education or involving a public primary or secondary school, public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1114, ch. 530, Sec. 4, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 910 (H.B. 1284), Sec. 2, eff. June 14, 2013.


Sec. 42.061. SILENT OR ABUSIVE CALLS TO 9-1-1 SERVICE. (a) In this section "9-1-1 service" and "public safety answering point" or "PSAP" have the meanings assigned by Section 771.001, Health and Safety Code.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person makes a call to a 9-1-1 service, or requests 9-1-1 service using an electronic communications device, when there is not an emergency and knowingly or intentionally:
(1) remains silent; or
(2) makes abusive or harassing statements to a PSAP employee.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly permits an electronic communications device, including a telephone, under the person's control to be used by another person in a manner described in Subsection (b).
(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 582, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 14, Sec. 284(2), eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Amended by:
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 331 (H.B. 1972), Sec. 6, eff. September 1, 2013.

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

mojo84 wrote:It's kind of crazy, folks that usually get elected have to have tremendous egos. Those same egos can get in the way of doing the right thing. Can be pretty frustrating.

joe817 wrote:

Salty1 wrote:If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

Well put Salty. My thoughts as well. Thank you.

Beiruty wrote:

We CHLers are the ambassadors for the good guys carrying. It was only friends who knew you are carrying. If you OC your BBQ gun, everyone will be
So behave appropriately. I can see my self OC and from the range or while dressed up for BBQ party, etc...

RPBrown wrote:The question I have is will this amendment be accepted by the senate or is this a bill killer?

TexasCajun wrote:

RPBrown wrote:The question I have is will this amendment be accepted by the senate or is this a bill killer?

The Dutton amendment probably would have been a non-issue for the Senate. But Stickland decided to run his mouth, so it might very well be a bill killer now.

TexasCajun wrote:

RPBrown wrote:The question I have is will this amendment be accepted by the senate or is this a bill killer?

The Dutton amendment probably would have been a non-issue for the Senate. But Stickland decided to run his mouth, so it might very well be a bill killer now.

Texascrewser wrote:If I'm reading this right, because of Sticklands comment on the amendment it's going to be the end HB910?
Is there any hope for SB17 or how does that work?
Sorry for the dumb question I'm still learning the legislative process.

AJSully421 wrote:

Texascrewser wrote:If I'm reading this right, because of Sticklands comment on the amendment it's going to be the end HB910?
Is there any hope for SB17 or how does that work?
Sorry for the dumb question I'm still learning the legislative process.

If the Dutton amendment is not cool with the Senate, they will pass an amendment that strips that language out of the bill and then pass it in that form. Then it will go to conference between the two bodies to be hashed out and finalized.

99% chances are it will not kill the entire HB910.

AJSully421 wrote:

Texascrewser wrote:If I'm reading this right, because of Sticklands comment on the amendment it's going to be the end HB910?
Is there any hope for SB17 or how does that work?
Sorry for the dumb question I'm still learning the legislative process.

If the Dutton amendment is not cool with the Senate, they will pass an amendment that strips that language out of the bill and then pass it in that form. Then it will go to conference between the two bodies to be hashed out and finalized.

99% chances are it will not kill the entire HB910.

Edited to add: What could also happen is the Senate could add language that says something to the effect of: "Nothing in this section shall prevent a peace officer from making contact with a person who the officer reasonably believes in not licensed to carry, or in response to a call from a concerned citizen."

Don't think for one second that the 11 Senate liberals are not all going to hit on what Stickland said.