TexasCHLforum.com

Fascinating read on some of what is going on in the Capitol this session:
http://politics.blog.mystatesman.com/2017/05/18/7829/

Yes it comes from the liberal rag of the Statesman, but there are some very interesting insights, particularly from the Mexican American Legislative Caucus and others.

You can bet that there will be changes in the way things are done next legislative session.

I can just about guarantee that if these Freedom Caucus members are around next session, they will feel the wrath of the House leadership and will have a hard time getting hearings on their bills in committee. Retribution, regardless of how it is veiled (opposing these bills on "policy") is not a great way to win friends, influence people and bring people around to your viewpoint.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Rvrrat14 wrote:So is there enough support/time for 1911 to pass?

I'm predicting death in the Calendars Committee, but I am no where near the know, let alone in it.

If it isn't on the calendar Monday or Tuesday it probably dies in calendars.

Has to at least get a first reading, yeah?

Second. First was when they read the caption and sent it to committee. Second is when it comes up for floor debate after being reported favorably from committee. Third reading is final passage from that chamber.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Rvrrat14 wrote:So is there enough support/time for 1911 to pass?

I'm predicting death in the Calendars Committee, but I am no where near the know, let alone in it.

If it isn't on the calendar Monday or Tuesday it probably dies in calendars.

Ruark wrote:What we should do is allow them X number of days for the session, but require them to stay until they have voted on ALL of the bills, no matter how long it takes. That would get some stuff done. All this racing against the clock is just plain stupid.

That is the antithesis of limited government. Frankly, I like the fact that only about 15-25% of the proposed bills get passed in any given session. It means that change in the state of Texas comes slowly and we don't have major knee-jerk reactions without getting the vast majority of the legislators onboard.

Yes it means good change comes slowly too, but it also means that bad changes can be more easily headed off.

tx85 wrote:Houston Police Chief Mr. Acevedo just retweeted this:

https://everytown.org/press/new-gun-vio ... ctivation/

The organization also announced today the formation of Everytown’s advisory board – a distinguished and diverse group of leaders and gun violence survivors: Art Acevedo, Tom Barrett, Stephen Barton, Michael Bloomberg, David Boren, Eli Broad, Warren Buffett, Gloria Chavez, David Chipman, Michael Coleman, Carlos Giménez, Roxanna Green, Nick Hanauer, Geoffrey Henry, Danny Jones, Ken Lerer, John Mack, Thomas Menino, Marc Morial, Mike Mullen, Michael Nutter, Annise Parker, Cleopatra Pendleton, Nathaniel Pendleton, Tom Ridge, Gilles Rousseau, Christy Salters Martin and Shannon Watts.

ScottDLS wrote:

Russell wrote:I didn't read anything about eliminating 30.06/30.07 for license holders, however I do see this gem:

SECTION 17. Sections 46.15(a) and (b), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) Sections 46.02, [and] 46.03, and 46.035 do not apply to:

[(A)] a license holder [issued] under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, [to carry a handgun;] and is
carrying
[(B)] a handgun:
(A) [(i)] in a concealed manner; or
(B) [(ii)] in a [shoulder or belt] holster;
(7) is at least 21 years of age and:
(A) has not been convicted of a felony;
(B) is fully qualified under applicable federal
law to purchase and possess a handgun;
(C) meets the requirements under Sections
411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code;
(D) is not a member of a criminal street gang, as
defined by Section 71.01; and
(E) is carrying a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster;

Did we just get some of HB 560 added into HB 1911?

First. The bill would appear to eliminate the effect of 30.06/7 by not updating them to include people not carrying UNDER AUTHORITY of LTC.

Second: The above is INDEED helpful for LTC, if I am reading it the same as you.

You are both missing that 46.15(a) that exempts certain people from 46.02, 46.03 and 46.035 only applies to the people listed in section 46.15(a). General LTC holders are not listed. Everyone in 46.15(a) is a government employee:
1) on or off duty peace officers or special investigators
2) Parole officers
3) community supervisioin and corrections department officers
4) active judicial officers
5) various honorably retired peace officers and investigators
6) various district and county attorneys with LTCs
7) various assistant district and county attorneys with LTCs
8) certain bailiffs with LTCs in certain situations
9) certain juvenile probation officers

46.15(b) only exempts LTCs and authorized persons from 46.02 and provides the definition of an "Authorized person".

It is true that 30.06 and 30.07 would only apply to LTC holders, but per AG Morales, any gunbuster sign, no matter the size or location would prohibit entry by an unlicensed person. So if the location doesn't have a gun buster sign anywhere, but they do have 30.06 and 30.07, an argument could be made that you were carrying as an otherwise authorized person rather than an LTC holder, but honestly I don't think it would fly with a judge or jury (provided it went to a trial for a class C). Most of the 30.06 and 30.07 signs I've seen have had the gun buster pictogram somewhere on them.

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I don't see how it makes 46.035 void in any way nor do I see where it allows people to carry into schools. As far as I can tell 46.03 is left alone except for 46.03(e-1) and 46.03(e-2) where it is amended to allow unlicensed individuals a chance to leave the secure area of an airport like licensed people are given currently.

Edit to add: In 46.035 aside from making 46.035 apply to non license holders it does remove places of worship from the list of off limits locations that must post a sign to actually be off limits.

Page 13 line 8, adds 46.03 and 46.035 to the exemptions for ltc holders and authorized carriers.

I see what you are saying. Page 13, line 8 adds 46.035... but that is for cops, and everyone listed from page 13 line 8 until page 15, Line 6... at which time, page 15, line 7 starts discussing the groups for whom 46.02 do not apply (but that 46.03 and 46.035 DO STILL APPLY) and CHL holders are listed under there like they always have been.

This is the "Some animals are more equal than others" law that we have fought every time that it has come up to give exemptions to 46.035 for court employees, DAs, and other non-leo folks.

This bill does not exempt license holders from 46.03 or 46.035, unless that license holder is also a "special citizen" like a city attorney or probation officer, and others that are not TCOLE or Security licensed to carry a handgun as part of their jobs.

Licensed peace officers are special and according to our legislators should be give special protections not afforded to regular citizens. I understand the logic behind it, but I disagree with it.

One thing that I think people are missing is that churches have only been off limits to license holders if posted with a 30.06 or 30.07 for quite a while. The removal of 46.035(b)(6) means that a government owned church cannot be posted as off limits to a license holder.

Hospitals and amusement parks are off limits to non-license holders carrying a handgun by statue, but must be posted with 30.06 and 30.07 to prohibit license holders from entering with a handgun.

Now the question I have is, will the gun buster logo placed in the watermark of a 30.06 or 30.07 sign count as effective notice for a non-licensed carrier? Also means that if HEB wants to keep openly carried pistols out of their store, the only way they will be able to do that is post 30.07 AND a gun buster sign which will prohibit unlicensed concealed carriers as well.

I will definitely be keeping my license current.