Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

This forum will be open on Sept. 1, 2016.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
casp625
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#1

Post by casp625 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:06 am

Like many of you, I was a little disappointed to learn that HB 560 (a.k.a. the holy grail) was put on the back burner and left to die. But ironically enough, "rights for me but not for thee" seems to be alive and well with HB 873! Expanded right for the elitists and nothing for the mere citizens! What's the point of having the best track record (with least conviction rate among the general population and the police) when we still can't be "trusted" to be law-abiding citizens?! I'm not saying we should be able to carry anywhere in public ( as HB 873 would allow), but the removal of restrictions outlined in HB 560 were very reasonable and we couldn't even get even get a consideration? Where is the outrage? /EndRant

HB 873 - Bill passed the House
Art. 2.1305. CARRYING WEAPON ON CERTAIN PREMISES. (a) An
establishment serving the public may not prohibit or otherwise
restrict a peace officer or special investigator from carrying on
the establishment's premises a weapon that the peace officer or
special investigator is otherwise authorized to carry, regardless
of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in
the actual discharge of the officer's or investigator's duties
while carrying the weapon.

User avatar

allisji
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:44 am
Location: Seabrook

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#2

Post by allisji » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:12 am

The anti's pro-gun bill. "I need to appeal to my pro-gun constituents with a bill that won't give those crazy gun-owner's free reign to carry guns wherever they please... Let's just make a bill that applies to LEOs... those crazy gun nuts love police..."
LTC since 2015
I have contacted my state rep Dennis Paul about co-sponsoring HB560.


steveincowtown
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1374
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#3

Post by steveincowtown » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:57 am

I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.


I know it is probably to early, but man this session has me jaded. The need to turn the Texas Capital into a zoo so that kids can some see Rinos up close and personal. :biggrinjester:
The Time is Now...
NRA Lifetime Member


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#4

Post by Papa_Tiger » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:05 am

steveincowtown wrote:I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.


I know it is probably to early, but man this session has me jaded. The need to turn the Texas Capital into a zoo so that kids can some see Rinos up close and personal. :biggrinjester:
But then would it become off limits to those with an LTC since it is an educational institution? :biggrinjester:
Last edited by Papa_Tiger on Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1865
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#5

Post by parabelum » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:05 am

Now that's a good one steveincowtown. :mrgreen:
III%

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8288
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#6

Post by mojo84 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:11 am

It comes down to too much power and control in one position, Speaker of the House. It only takes a few rino cronies in bed with the dems to control the whole show. The true conservatives are marginalized and outnumbered to the point they have been neutered.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3432
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#7

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:37 am

steveincowtown wrote:I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.
Any private property owner, including a business owner, can still put a circle-slash badge sticker on their door and completely ban everyone who has a badge, including LEO's. After all, circle-slash stickers have the force of law under 30.05 unless an exemption has been made, such as under 30.06 and 30.07 for LTC holders.
Ding dong, the witch is dead


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#8

Post by Papa_Tiger » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:52 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.
Any private property owner, including a business owner, can still put a circle-slash badge sticker on their door and completely ban everyone who has a badge, including LEO's. After all, circle-slash stickers have the force of law under 30.05 unless an exemption has been made, such as under 30.06 and 30.07 for LTC holders.
TPC 30.05(i) has something to say about that:
TPC 30.05 wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.

User avatar

Lynyrd
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1098
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:20 am
Location: East Texas

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#9

Post by Lynyrd » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:04 pm

I was having a discussion with a person the other day about HB 560. This person is not anti gun at all. He even carries one in his truck all the time. I was trying to encourage him to apply for his LTC and I covered a few of the bills that are in the legislature this session. When I talked about HB560 expanding the places that an LTC can carry he was not for that at all, which surprised me. His reasoning? LEO's have more training and they will be safer with their guns.

I would not be surprised if that same type of thinking is pervasive in our legislature.

I was having another discussion with a hunting buddy who happens to be a DPS trooper and the subject of LTC stops came up. He related a story where he stopped someone who immediately showed him their LTC. He asked if they had a gun, and they replied yes. He asked where it was and they said in the glove box, and the 'clip' is in the trunk. :shock:

He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?

He said he told the person he was going back to his car and he wanted them to open their trunk, get the 'clip' and put it in the gun, and then get back in their car.

Now both of these stories really have nothing to do with most LTC holders, but it can explain some sentiment about LTC holders in general. Sad as it may be, not everyone knows that LTC is the most law abiding group of citizens in the state.
Do what you say you're gonna do.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3432
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#10

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:14 pm

Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.
Any private property owner, including a business owner, can still put a circle-slash badge sticker on their door and completely ban everyone who has a badge, including LEO's. After all, circle-slash stickers have the force of law under 30.05 unless an exemption has been made, such as under 30.06 and 30.07 for LTC holders.
TPC 30.05(i) has something to say about that:
TPC 30.05 wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
I stand corrected. So it appears that LEO's have a blanket exemption from 30.05 if I am reading this correctly. Not sure why the exemption references a weapon though. That part is odd.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7180
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#11

Post by RoyGBiv » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:20 pm

OK, I'll point out the very small, probably hopeless anyway, silver lining in 873 in the codification of the concept of an "establishment serving the public".
I sure would love the opportunity to make some hay with that concept to the benefit of LTCs.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4254
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#12

Post by ScottDLS » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:24 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.
Any private property owner, including a business owner, can still put a circle-slash badge sticker on their door and completely ban everyone who has a badge, including LEO's. After all, circle-slash stickers have the force of law under 30.05 unless an exemption has been made, such as under 30.06 and 30.07 for LTC holders.
TPC 30.05(i) has something to say about that:
TPC 30.05 wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
I stand corrected. So it appears that LEO's have a blanket exemption from 30.05 if I am reading this correctly. Not sure why the exemption references a weapon though. That part is odd.
Nope the circle slash badge sign is prohibiting LEO's and Special Investigators from entering AT ALL. Not entering with a handgun. So circle / badge works!! :biggrinjester:

ETA: It's all part of the long Texas tradition of supporting the rights of property owners to post "signs" that goes back to the days of the Republic. :evil2:
Last edited by ScottDLS on Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4007
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#13

Post by Jusme » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:29 pm

Lynyrd wrote:I was having a discussion with a person the other day about HB 560. This person is not anti gun at all. He even carries one in his truck all the time. I was trying to encourage him to apply for his LTC and I covered a few of the bills that are in the legislature this session. When I talked about HB560 expanding the places that an LTC can carry he was not for that at all, which surprised me. His reasoning? LEO's have more training and they will be safer with their guns.

I would not be surprised if that same type of thinking is pervasive in our legislature.

I was having another discussion with a hunting buddy who happens to be a DPS trooper and the subject of LTC stops came up. He related a story where he stopped someone who immediately showed him their LTC. He asked if they had a gun, and they replied yes. He asked where it was and they said in the glove box, and the 'clip' is in the trunk. :shock:

He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?

He said he told the person he was going back to his car and he wanted them to open their trunk, get the 'clip' and put it in the gun, and then get back in their car.

Now both of these stories really have nothing to do with most LTC holders, but it can explain some sentiment about LTC holders in general. Sad as it may be, not everyone knows that LTC is the most law abiding group of citizens in the state.

:iagree:

There is still a very pervasive attitude among the general public, even LTC holders, that the police are somehow so much better trained with firearms, even to the point that a LEO is somehow more intuitively knowledgeable about firearms than the average civilian. There are several LEO who are very well trained, and knowledgeable, about them, but those folks have received extra training. The average LEO , gets a bare minimum of hands on training, through normal police training procedures, and usually only have to qualify twice a year.

This attitude is borne out of years of indoctrination of anti gun folks, who insist that only those in government jobs are safely qualified to handle guns. This is evident with the passage of legislation which exempts LEO from carrying in restricted places, even off duty.
As a former LEO, I know that most LEO are no safer, or knowledgeable about guns than John Q. Public, and often times less so.

These attitudes, are very prevalent among Legislators, who are very supportive of LEO, and unfortunately, listen to the administrators in law enforcement, rather than the LEO who actually work the streets. LEO understand the importance of having a law abiding, armed populace, and welcome those of us , as almost an extension of themselves, while administrators, believe that we are a problem and distraction.

Getting back on topic, I don't understand the relevance, or need for this legislation. I have not heard of anyone, prohibiting LEO from carrying, in their businesses, or on their property. It may have happened, but I haven't heard of it. I wonder if this is in response to the case in Washington State, where the Sheriff was denied entry to an entertainment venue with his gun?
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3432
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#14

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:31 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
Soccerdad1995 wrote:
steveincowtown wrote:I guess Texas' strong policy toward private property rights is selective.
Any private property owner, including a business owner, can still put a circle-slash badge sticker on their door and completely ban everyone who has a badge, including LEO's. After all, circle-slash stickers have the force of law under 30.05 unless an exemption has been made, such as under 30.06 and 30.07 for LTC holders.
TPC 30.05(i) has something to say about that:
TPC 30.05 wrote:(i) This section does not apply if:

(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and

(2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon.
I stand corrected. So it appears that LEO's have a blanket exemption from 30.05 if I am reading this correctly. Not sure why the exemption references a weapon though. That part is odd.
Nope the circle slash badge sign is prohibiting LEO's and Special Investigators from entering AT ALL. Not entering with a handgun. So circle / badge works!! :biggrinjester:
Your right. I read subsection (2) but not subsection (1). The circle slash badge is forbidding entry on the basis that someone is a LEO, not on the basis of whether or not they have a gun. Gosh our laws sure are complicated.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4007
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#15

Post by Jusme » Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:34 pm

RoyGBiv wrote:OK, I'll point out the very small, probably hopeless anyway, silver lining in 873 in the codification of the concept of an "establishment serving the public".
I sure would love the opportunity to make some hay with that concept to the benefit of LTCs.

:iagree:

If they can classify a business as such for LEO, what justification would their be for denying the same rights to LTC holders at a later date?
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

Locked

Return to “2017 Texas Legislative Session”