Maybe this is a new thread???
Now that the dust has settled a bit, I've begun thinking ahead to 2017. Without a doubt, HB 308 presented the greatest leap forward for gun rights in TX, of any gun Bill introduced in 2015. Will this Bill be revived for 2017?
In considering an HB 308-like Bill for 2017, we might also consider possibly dividing this leap into smaller steps.
If the 2017 legislative pulse still doesn't favor the full version of HB 308 (applicable to all CHL's), would an "Enhanced Permit" similar to Mississippi be a useful step in a good direction?
Search found 21 matches
- Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:20 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
- Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:35 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Hmmmm.... Interesting.mr1337 wrote:18 USC 930RoyGBiv wrote:The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.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.
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.
Also not legal advice.(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.
- Mon Jun 01, 2015 2:22 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
The Post Office is not required to post signs... PO's are administered under Federal law.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.
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.
- Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:01 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
I deleted the second paragraph of my previous post before hitting submit.... but it went something like this...KC5AV wrote: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.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.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.
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.
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.
- Mon Jun 01, 2015 12:09 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
I would bet heavily that unlicensed carry of any kind will not have any real clout behind it for some time to come.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.
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.
- Fri May 08, 2015 2:25 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
I don't agree.mr1337 wrote:Absolutely, but I'm sure we can all agree that having a watered-down HB308 is better than having no HB308 at all.RoyGBiv wrote:Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.
So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks
Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?
If "Class C" is the only substantive thing we get from this bill, it's worth noting that the class c change is attached to the House version of Open Carry. There's little else remaining in HB 308 that is worth fighting over, it seems to me. Rather than accepting a bill that changes so little, it might be best to withdraw the bill at this juncture and fight again for the good version of it next session.
I may be mising something else useful in what's left of 308. If so, I reserve the right to change my position...
- Fri May 08, 2015 9:54 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Yes. That's why I'm crying.CJD wrote:This was removed in the substitute.RoyGBiv wrote:[ Image ](a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
.
.
(5) a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying.
- Fri May 08, 2015 9:51 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
.
.
(5) a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying.
- Fri May 08, 2015 9:25 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.
So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks
Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?
So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks
Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?
- Thu May 07, 2015 8:51 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Still no new text posted online...
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anyone have any news on what's changed in the committee substitute?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Anyone have any news on what's changed in the committee substitute?
- Tue May 05, 2015 9:17 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Still not available as of this post.C-dub wrote:Cool.TexasJohnBoy wrote:Yes, I know that certain government buildings are allowed and others are prohibited for carry. I'm lookin for where 308 would/wouldn't allow carry on campuses. It was a busy day at work and I didn't get to read all of the text of the bill, so I am more than likely simply confused at this point. Sounds like SB11 was referred to committee today so it may end up being a moot point. I'm going to try and sit down and read through the introduced text start to end this evening.
From earlier posts, the current text with the committee substitute may not be available yet.
- Tue May 05, 2015 4:13 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
I see... yes.. private property 30.06 violation would remain class A under HB 308 as originally proposed.CJD wrote:Yes but he asked about 30.06!RoyGBiv wrote:Actually, HB308 original version makes 46.035 violation a class C as well.CJD wrote:No that's 910cowhow wrote:Didn't the original bill reduce 30.06 to a Class C?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00308I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See section 4
- Tue May 05, 2015 2:34 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Actually, HB308 original version makes 46.035 violation a class C as well.CJD wrote:No that's 910cowhow wrote:Didn't the original bill reduce 30.06 to a Class C?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00308I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See section 4
- Tue May 05, 2015 12:44 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
You should reserve judgement until they post the committee substituted version...TexasJohnBoy wrote:Yall may be right. I'm looking through the text again now. I like this bill. Much.
I could be a sourpuss and guess that schools remain off limits in the new version... but.. I'll wait for it to be posted....
- Tue May 05, 2015 11:17 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB308
- Replies: 230
- Views: 82444
Re: HB308
Activity has been updated but the revised text is not posted yet.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB308" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
H Reported favorably as substituted 05/05/2015