TexasCHLforum.com

A new article on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was published dealing with HB195.

Chas.

The crux seems to point out that the way this HB195 was written, 30.06 may be applied to both OC and CHL scenarios. As such, this means that property owners who are concerned about OC in their establishments, they have a single tool that applies to both licensed (concealed) and unlicenced (OC) situations.

I agree with that concern - it would need to be clarified or we risk OC causing significant restriction on CHL through increased risk of 30.06.

Any chance in an amendment in the bill to clarify this point, or are there any other unlicensed OC + unlicensed CC bills filed (or yet to be filed)?

mr1337 wrote:Any chance in an amendment in the bill to clarify this point, or are there any other unlicensed OC + unlicensed CC bills filed (or yet to be filed)?

At least one other licensed open-carry bill will be filed and possibly another unlicensed open-carry bill. The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC. Something else has been drafted as a lifeboat, but I can't say more. There's no reason to file a different unlicensed open-carry bill if there's no chance such a bill would pass.

I don't know if Stickland would amend HB195, or if he'll even get the opportunity. If it is really an OCT/NAGR bill as OCT claims, then they should be pushing for a committee substitute. Again, HB195 may never have the opportunity for a committee substitute.

Chas.

Charles, can you please explain the "committee substitute" process? I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means/entails.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC.

Does the bill contain verbiage that makes it clear that licensed OC is not in and of itself justification for stop by law enforcement? I looked at Oklahoma's law - it's not as clear as I'd like it to be, but it does make clear under what circumstances LEO can ask to see a license. The current state of the union in Texas, LEOs have a pretty good success as at being able to initiate a stop (and force ID) simply based on carrying a firearm in a public place.

Oklahoma's verbiage for reference:

...It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to identify
the fact that the person is in actual possession of a concealed
handgun pursuant to the authority of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act
when the person first comes into contact with any law enforcement
officer of this state or its political subdivisions or a federal law
enforcement officer during the course of any arrest, detainment, or
routine traffic stop."

I

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, can you please explain the "committee substitute" process? I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means/entails.

If a bill is given a committee hearing, the author can lay out a substitute bill that will be debated. If/when a vote is taken on the bill in committee, it is the substitute that is voted. Any bill can also be amended in committee by a majority vote, without laying out a substitute, but that is done when committee members, other than the author, who want the amendments.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC.

Does the bill contain verbiage that makes it clear that licensed OC is not in and of itself justification for stop by law enforcement?

No.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC.

Does the bill contain verbiage that makes it clear that licensed OC is not in and of itself justification for stop by law enforcement?

No.

Chas.

After reading a few different posts on this subject, it seems that some feel that they will lose some of their 4th Amendment for a slight gain of 2nd Amendment. Is that the intent (which seems doubtful), or is it that those filing this bill don't believe enough CHLers will open carry to have to worry about it? Or something else entirely that I likely haven't thought of? There is so much stuff surrounding this topic that it gets a person's thoughts down a rabbit-hole rather quickly.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, can you please explain the "committee substitute" process? I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means/entails.

If a bill is given a committee hearing, the author can lay out a substitute bill that will be debated. If/when a vote is taken on the bill in committee, it is the substitute that is voted. Any bill can also be amended in committee by a majority vote, without laying out a substitute, but that is done when committee members other than the author want the amendments.

Chas.

So basically, the original bill acts as a placeholder, which is discarded once the substitution occurs?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Any chance in an amendment in the bill to clarify this point, or are there any other unlicensed OC + unlicensed CC bills filed (or yet to be filed)?

At least one other licensed open-carry bill will be filed and possibly another unlicensed open-carry bill. The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC. Something else has been drafted as a lifeboat, but I can't say more. There's no reason to file a different unlicensed open-carry bill if there's no chance such a bill would pass.

I don't know if Stickland would amend HB195, or if he'll even get the opportunity. If it is really an OCT/NAGR bill as OCT claims, then they should be pushing for a committee substitute. Again, HB195 may never have the opportunity for a committee substitute.

Chas.

I have one question, if we got CHL + option to open carry, then 30.06 will still be enforceable on those who open carry or concealed carry. So, if someone is open carry and did not enter a business, if the business do not like that, they would post a valid 30.06 and ban all of us CHLers from entering their business.
What is the plan for this issue? I think we would have to trust the CHLers not to open carry when going to shop in private businesses.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC.

Does the bill contain verbiage that makes it clear that licensed OC is not in and of itself justification for stop by law enforcement?

No.

Chas.

After reading a few different posts on this subject, it seems that some feel that they will lose some of their 4th Amendment for a slight gain of 2nd Amendment. Is that the intent (which seems doubtful), or is it that those filing this bill don't believe enough CHLers will open carry to have to worry about it? Or something else entirely that I likely haven't thought of? There is so much stuff surrounding this topic that it gets a person's thoughts down a rabbit-hole rather quickly.

This is a very real concern and one that I share. Unfortunately, a recent stunt by someone we all all know has created an issue with the protective language I would like to see in an open-carry bill. The concern is that, even if it is known or suspected that a person does not or cannot have a CHL, then LEOs would be prohibited from inquiring, if the bill has the language we all would like to see.

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, can you please explain the "committee substitute" process? I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means/entails.

If a bill is given a committee hearing, the author can lay out a substitute bill that will be debated. If/when a vote is taken on the bill in committee, it is the substitute that is voted. Any bill can also be amended in committee by a majority vote, without laying out a substitute, but that is done when committee members other than the author want the amendments.

Chas.

So basically, the original bill acts as a placeholder, which is discarded once the substitution occurs?

Correct. Usually, one does not file a bill with the intent to submit a committee substitute, however, sometimes it's a tactical move. That is not the case here.

Another bit of trivia. If a committee substitute is presented at the opening of a committee hearing, it does not appear on the legislative website unless the bill is given a vote in committee. If no vote is ever taken, the public doesn't get to see the committee substitute that was debated. I wish it was otherwise because this often causes confusion.

Chas.

Why don't we all push for unlicensed concealed carry and forget open carry?
What is the advantage of open carry? It seems to me that OC just causes concern
in other people who don't know your intentions. For all they know, you could be a
law-abiding citizen or some dangerous,crazy,nut-bar. How are they to know which?
Also,if you OC,and a bad guy shows up,he is going right for the person who OCs,
because such person poses the most threat to him. Better to carry concealed,as this
won't cause unnecessary concern,and you might have a better chance of stopping
criminal behavior. My argument is based on my belief that passing a bill allowing
unlicensed concealed carry will be easier than passing a bill allowing open carry.

Shouldn't each person be able to carry as they see fit? I have a strong feeling most people that open carry will do it in a manner that shouldn't cause alarm. For example, most crooks, thugs and criminals will not carry openly and will probably will not do it in a proper holster.

I think the hysteria resulting possibly seeing someone open carrying many mention is unfounded. Look at the states where there is open vary already. No mad hysteria and seldom, if ever, do I hear of a bad guy shooting an open carrier first.