HB1911: Rep. White's Press Release

[Charles L. Cotton]

Don't attack anyone mentioned in this press release! I want pro-gun bills to pass far more than I want to provide a venting opportunity.

Chas.

You got it! Charles, as a practical matter if you are free to discuss it, I have two questions:

(1) Would Texas continue to issue LTC's for those that want them for reciprocity purposes, like Arizona does for instance?

(2) How would passage of Constitutional Carry affect 30.06/30.07 issues, which specifically apply to licensed individuals?

Thanks for all the work you're doing!!

(1) Yes, but I suspect it will be important for much more than reciprocity, should HB1911 pass this session;
(2) The as-filed version of HB1911 would apply both TPC §§30.06 and 30.07 to both licensed and unlicensed carry. The committee substitute would not. We simply cannot allow any "constitutional carry" bill to pass if it applies 30.06 and 30.07 to both licensed and unlicensed carry.

Chas.

[Papa_Tiger]

My interpretation is that 30.08 signs will be added to restrict unlicensed carry.

You are correct if what I was sent is accurate, which seems to be supported by the Press Release. The language used in what I was sent is

"Pursuant to Section 30.08, Penal Code (trespass by person not licensed to carry handgun), a person who does not hold a license to carry a handgun may not enter this property with a handgun"

Hmmm... So now the sign vendors are going to say, "hey if you want to keep those crazy unlicensed handgun carriers out of your place of business, you need to buy this sign. For the low up-sell of $X more, I'll throw in these other two signs as well. Just place them in your front window and you are good to go!"

I sense another proliferation of 30.06 AND 30.07 signs coming if 30.08 hits the books. In my experience, contrary to some of the assertions on this board, the up-tick in 30.06 and 30.07 signs has not been short lived. I'm getting 2-3 e-mails per day of NEW businesses posting, and I'm not seeing many signs come down.

It would be interesting to see what kinds of statistics Russell has on the numbers of businesses and the following combinations:
Pre-Jan 1, 2016
30.06 ONLY

Jan 1, 2016 to Unlicensed Carry Legal Date
30.06 ONLY
30.07 ONLY
30.06 AND 30.07

(Assuming it happens...)
Post Unlicensed Legal Carry Date
30.06 ONLY
30.07 ONLY
30.08 ONLY
30.06 AND 30.07
30.06 AND 30.08
30.07 AND 30.08
30.06 AND 30.07 AND 30.08

I doubt we would see many 30.06/7 signs replaced by 30.08 and I would be willing to bet we see a lot more 30.06/7 signs go up, joined by 30.08.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I sure hope this doesn't mean that 30.06 / 30.07 signs will only restrict carry for LTC holders and not for those without an LTC. I assume I am reading this part incorrectly....

This is exactly the case and it must be so. We cannot allow a law that would force property owners to either allow entry of everyone with a gun or prohibit entry by anyone with a gun. They must have the flexibility to allow licensed carry while prohibiting unlicensed carry.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Wonder what the odds are on passing 1911.?
Hard to imagine a better Bill number for this Bill.

They used that Bill number to force me to get on board!

Chas.

[G.A. Heath]

Wonder what the odds are on passing 1911.?
Hard to imagine a better Bill number for this Bill.

They used that Bill number to force me to get on board!

Chas.

Mods! Quick edit this post so that our opposition doesn't discover how to get Charles to support anti-gun legislation!

[Soccerdad1995]

I sure hope this doesn't mean that 30.06 / 30.07 signs will only restrict carry for LTC holders and not for those without an LTC. I assume I am reading this part incorrectly....

This is exactly the case and it must be so. We cannot allow a law that would force property owners to either allow entry of everyone with a gun or prohibit entry by anyone with a gun. They must have the flexibility to allow licensed carry while prohibiting unlicensed carry.

Chas.

Got it, and that makes perfect sense.

The anti-gun property owners can say what they want about our gun laws, but they can't say we aren't being accommodating, by basically allowing them to choose any combination of licensed / unlicensed, and open / concealed carry.

[TexasJohnBoy]

It will affect me exactly 0, but an expansion of gun rights it an expansion of gun rights. I hope this passes, and I will let my reps know that!

[NotRPB]

Federal #GFSZA
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Acts exempts (or excepts?) "Does Not Apply To" those licensed by the State where the School Zone is Located.

Quoted in part:
18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;[/b]
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

Anyone venturing to pick up/drop off kids after/before school in their car in the parking lot or "drive thru drop-off", the LTC still benefits too (Not just reciprocity benefit)

So Federal Government itself already established a difference in Licensees versus Constitutional Carry .. There's Precedent for "A Difference" License conveys more "abilities" whether you want to call them rights or privileges once had but lost, their abilities to do a thing within the law.

We simply cannot allow any "constitutional carry" bill to pass if it applies 30.06 and 30.07 to both licensed and unlicensed carry.

[NotRPB]

http://www.texas3008.com

We're getting ready for the inevitable flood of new signage if this bill passes when the news organizations report impending blood in the streets.

:)

I was going to do this in a PM, but no way to attach
I'm getting a Comodo warning at 3008 I don't get at 3006
(Using their DNS servers)

[Pawpaw]

http://www.texas3008.com

We're getting ready for the inevitable flood of new signage if this bill passes when the news organizations report impending blood in the streets.

:)

I was going to do this in a PM, but no way to attach
I'm getting a Comodo warning at 3008 I don't get at 3006
(Using their DNS servers)

ComodoSecureDNS.jpg

Prohibited content?? The only "content" there is the Parkingcrew privacy policy.

[Lynyrd]

My interpretation is that 30.08 signs will be added to restrict unlicensed carry.

You are correct if what I was sent is accurate, which seems to be supported by the Press Release. The language used in what I was sent is

"Pursuant to Section 30.08, Penal Code (trespass by person not licensed to carry handgun), a person who does not hold a license to carry a handgun may not enter this property with a handgun"

So if this passes, and a business with both a 30.06 and 30.07 sign doesn't put up the new 30.08 signs, only unlicensed people will be able to carry there.

[Charles L. Cotton]

My interpretation is that 30.08 signs will be added to restrict unlicensed carry.

You are correct if what I was sent is accurate, which seems to be supported by the Press Release. The language used in what I was sent is

"Pursuant to Section 30.08, Penal Code (trespass by person not licensed to carry handgun), a person who does not hold a license to carry a handgun may not enter this property with a handgun"

So if this passes, and a business with both a 30.06 and 30.07 sign doesn't put up the new 30.08 signs, only unlicensed people will be able to carry there.

If a new section 30.08 is included in a committee substitute, this is correct.

Chas.