HB308

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

KC5AV
Senior Member
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: Marshall

Re: HB308

Postby KC5AV » Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:04 am

The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.
NRA lifetime member

User avatar

joe817
Senior Member
Posts: 8140
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
Location: Arlington

Re: HB308

Postby joe817 » Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:19 am

tlt wrote:Feeling a bit of buyers remorse now, that I read through some of this thread again. I am sorry this didn't happen. I know it has been a big priority for a long time. How can we make it a winning priority next session. Will there be an analysis, somewhere if not here.


The political resources were spent on OC & CC this legislature. Nothing was left for HB308. With those 2 bills out of the way, I feel like a similar bill to HB308 should be TOP PRIORITY for the next legislative session. Here's hoping & praying
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB308

Postby RoyGBiv » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:09 pm

KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


v7a
Banned
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: HB308

Postby v7a » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:15 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.

Given that there wasn't even enough support to pass HB910 with the Huffines/Dutton amendment included, it's pretty much guaranteed that unlicensed carry is DOA for the next 5-10 years. No doubt the mental midgets in OCT will conclude that if they just carry a few more AK-47s in public the needed support for unlicensed carry will magically appear.


nobius
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:11 pm
Location: Houston

Re: HB308

Postby nobius » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:41 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:
KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.


It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm happy to wait on unlicensed carry as long as my rights when carrying expand even though I would need a license.

I should not have to disarm in order to walk into a 51% bar and deliver papers early in the day when the place is not even open.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to the post office.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to IKEA.

User avatar

KC5AV
Senior Member
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: Marshall

Re: HB308

Postby KC5AV » Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:54 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:
KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.

Regardless of whether they have any political clout, we've already seen that it is possible to cause significant heartburn simply by using in-your-face tactics. This could easily have enough negative impact to overshadow the next iteration of HB308. A lot of political capital could be spent simply doing damage control and distancing that proposed legislation from those who would be trying to get all of the spotlight.
NRA lifetime member

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB308

Postby RoyGBiv » Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:01 pm

KC5AV wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
KC5AV wrote:The two biggest bills that overshadowed this one both passed, so they won't be standing in the way next time around.
There will obviously be another big push to go from licensed OC to unlicensed, and there will also likely be push to expand/modify campus carry, but hopefully those issues won't take all of the political capital next session, allowing for HB308 to be reintroduced.

I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.
My crystal ball sees the possibility of a need to clarify some aspects of licensed OC, but why would any serious person throw in with OCT and OCTC and NAGR on unlicensed carry, given the behaviors we saw this past cycle? I don't expect those self-destructive behaviors to diminish in the next cycle either.

Regardless of whether they have any political clout, we've already seen that it is possible to cause significant heartburn simply by using in-your-face tactics. This could easily have enough negative impact to overshadow the next iteration of HB308. A lot of political capital could be spent simply doing damage control and distancing that proposed legislation from those who would be trying to get all of the spotlight.

I deleted the second paragraph of my previous post before hitting submit.... but it went something like this...

If the OCT/OCTC folks continue their in-your-face tactics, licensed carry advocates would have an easy time creating distance and using that contrast to expand privileges for licensed carriers. It's certainly NOT what I want to do, but if the unlicensed OC crowd is going to blow up their own house, I'm ok with making a bonfire and roasting marshmallows out of the pieces.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

tornado
Senior Member
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: HB308

Postby tornado » Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:43 pm

nobius wrote:It may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm happy to wait on unlicensed carry as long as my rights when carrying expand even though I would need a license.

I should not have to disarm in order to walk into a 51% bar and deliver papers early in the day when the place is not even open.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to the post office.

I should not have to disarm in order to go to IKEA.

Bar: I totally agree. Open or not. As long as you're not intoxicated.
PO: That's federal. Talk to Congress.
IKEA: I don't see 30.06 going away. Texas is big on rights of private property owners.

Here's mine:
I should not have to disarm in order to visit my sons' public schools and leave a weapon in an unoccupied car, where I believe it's potentially more dangerous than concealed on my person.


viking1000
Senior Member
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 5:04 pm
Location: Texas Hill Country

Re: HB308

Postby viking1000 » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:01 pm

The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB308

Postby RoyGBiv » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:22 pm

viking1000 wrote:The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.
Carrying into a PO is a violation of Federal law, even if there is no sign.

You CAN carry into a Contract Postal Unit.... a PO inside a regular retail store that is not owned by or operated directly by a Federal employee.

See 18 US Code §930

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: HB308

Postby mr1337 » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:28 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:
viking1000 wrote:The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.
Carrying into a PO is a violation of Federal law, even if there is no sign.

You CAN carry into a Contract Postal Unit.... a PO inside a regular retail store that is not owned by or operated directly by a Federal employee.

See 18 US Code §930

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.


18 USC 930

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.


Also not legal advice.
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 6860
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: HB308

Postby RoyGBiv » Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:35 pm

mr1337 wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
viking1000 wrote:The Post Office where I live has no signs, besides as poverty stricken as the US Post Office is they must have every customer they can get. I live in a rural area.

The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.
Carrying into a PO is a violation of Federal law, even if there is no sign.

You CAN carry into a Contract Postal Unit.... a PO inside a regular retail store that is not owned by or operated directly by a Federal employee.

See 18 US Code §930

I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.


18 USC 930

(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.


Also not legal advice.


Hmmmm.... Interesting.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


CJD
Senior Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:38 pm
Location: Conroe

Re: HB308

Postby CJD » Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:21 pm

"no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be."

Underlined part would worry me. You would know it's a federal facility, would you therefore have "actual notice?"

Also, "(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

Could concealed carry not be a "lawful purpose?"

User avatar

CleverNickname
Senior Member
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:36 pm

Re: HB308

Postby CleverNickname » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:27 pm

CJD wrote:"no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be."

Underlined part would worry me. You would know it's a federal facility, would you therefore have "actual notice?"

Also, "(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes."

Could concealed carry not be a "lawful purpose?"

It would depend on whether "lawful purpose" includes what's lawful under state law, or only what's lawful under federal law. I'm guessing it's the latter.


TrueFlog
Senior Member
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:07 pm

Re: HB308

Postby TrueFlog » Wed Jun 03, 2015 8:40 pm

CJD wrote:"no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be."

Underlined part would worry me. You would know it's a federal facility, would you therefore have "actual notice?"

According to Nolo, "Actual notice occurs when an individual is directly told about something". Under that interpretation, the quoted section of the law would mean it's only an offense if a sign is posted or you're given verbal notification. (Essentially the same as our 30.06 law, but without the requirement for specific language on the sign)
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/actual-notice-term.html


Return to “2015 Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest