HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 67
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#301

Post by Papa_Tiger »

Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.

Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I was criticized by an "gun expert" for posting the above comments on another gun forum. He said the new law states that .06 signs will also apply to non-LTC carriers, which is utterly false, and suggested I read the law so I won't appear "uneducated." If gun enthusiasts are that confused, a LOT of people out there, especially non-shooter lay peoplek and business owners, won't be able to make sense of all this.
Hospitals are off limits to unlicensed carry per 46.03, so don't carry there even if you only see a 30.06/7 sign. Just about every other public location will require 30.05/6 at the least to prohibit all carry so long as the location isn't afraid of issuing personal warnings to those who choose to open carry.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#302

Post by ScottDLS »

Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.

Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I was criticized by an "gun expert" for posting the above comments on another gun forum. He said the new law states that .06 signs will also apply to non-LTC carriers, which is utterly false, and suggested I read the law so I won't appear "uneducated." If gun enthusiasts are that confused, a LOT of people out there, especially non-shooter lay peoplek and business owners, won't be able to make sense of all this.
You are correct and the "gun expert" is wrong. I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.
Good. I'm glad it's going to be a mess. Much less likely that locations and businesses will be able to comply.
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

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#303

Post by ScottDLS »

Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:21 pm
Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.

Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I was criticized by an "gun expert" for posting the above comments on another gun forum. He said the new law states that .06 signs will also apply to non-LTC carriers, which is utterly false, and suggested I read the law so I won't appear "uneducated." If gun enthusiasts are that confused, a LOT of people out there, especially non-shooter lay peoplek and business owners, won't be able to make sense of all this.
Hospitals are off limits to unlicensed carry per 46.03, so don't carry there even if you only see a 30.06/7 sign. Just about every other public location will require 30.05/6 at the least to prohibit all carry so long as the location isn't afraid of issuing personal warnings to those who choose to open carry.
This is a good point, however they are supposed to post a 46.03 sign to prevent unlicensed carry AND 30.06/7. However, unlike 30.05, the Defense to prosecution under 46.03 is weaker. It says you have to receive notice under 46.03 OR if you "knew" that carry was prohibited there you don't have the defense. I could see a reasonable argument that LTC should "know" that carry is prohibited there. On the other hand if you don't carry your LTC with you, you can clerly argue you were not carrying under authority of it. My main problem with all this is that the penalty is higher than a class C.
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!!!!"

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#304

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

flechero wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:16 pm
Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.
I seem to have misplaced my sympathy.

That's the price they will have to pay for excluding law abiding citizens from carrying... I mean they could have no signage and keep the entrances pretty and not incur any more risk than they already do by only letting the bad guys carry.
:iagree:

Yes it will require some work on the part of a business owner who wants to ban the exercise of 2A rights by as many people as possible. They can choose which subsets of people they don't want exercising this right, on their property, and can even choose to only prohibit a specific method for exercising 2A rights, at least in the case of LTC holders and concealed vs open carry. And they can restrict the RKBA, on their property by all but LEO's and VESP's (I believe).

But personally, I think we should place a high burden on those who wish to restrict the fundamental civil rights of others while they are on a person's property. I do not think that such a restriction should be easy, especially if you operate a business that is open to the general public.

I'd also feel the same way if we were talking about other rights, such as not allowing anyone to enter your property if they have voted in the last 10 years, for example.

Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 67
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#305

Post by Papa_Tiger »

ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#306

Post by ScottDLS »

Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7
License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
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!!!!"

seph
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:01 am

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#307

Post by seph »

ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:05 pm
Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7
License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
My understanding for 46.03 places is that there is no change for LTC holders. They have to post a 30.06/07 sign, or give verbal notice for those. A 46.03 sign means nothing for LTC, there would have to be the 30.06/07 notice given.
Let's go Brandon! "rlol"

Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 4337
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#308

Post by Soccerdad1995 »

ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:05 pm
Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7
License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
In addition to the above, I think it would be hard to argue that a LTC holder "knew" that a premise was off limits, simply based on the fact that they have an LTC. Especially when the statue draws this "knowledge" distinction precisely for LTC holders. If an LTC holder would "obviously" know about all off limits locations, then why would the statute leave open the possibility that an LTC holder might not have this knowledge?

Papa_Tiger
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 67
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 9:55 am

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#309

Post by Papa_Tiger »

seph wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:13 pm My understanding for 46.03 places is that there is no change for LTC holders.
This is correct.

Prior to HB 1927 becoming law 46.03 locations were off limits by statute to license holders. No 30.06/7 signs or oral notice were required for them to be off limits.
seph wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:13 pm They have to post a 30.06/07 sign, or give verbal notice for those. A 46.03 sign means nothing for LTC, there would have to be the 30.06/07 notice given.
That is not correct. I believe you are thinking of certain locations in 46.035 that were specially off limits to license holders but were required to post 30.06/7 signs for 46.035 to have effect (such as hospitals, colleges and governmental meetings covered by the open meetings act).

With HB 1927, the locations that were specifically off limits to license holders are now rolled into 46.03, and they brought with them the same 30.06/7 notification requirements. These locations are also off limits for unlicensed carry and if those locations properly post 46.03 signs you have no defense to prosecution if you are caught carrying in those locations.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#310

Post by ScottDLS »

seph wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:13 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 4:05 pm
Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.
People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:
  • License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))
  • License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )
Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7
License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )
My understanding for 46.03 places is that there is no change for LTC holders. They have to post a 30.06/07 sign, or give verbal notice for those. A 46.03 sign means nothing for LTC, there would have to be the 30.06/07 notice given.
But if there is no 46.03 sign, but only 30.06/7, would LTC holders NOT have the same Defense that non-LTC's have?
( o) A person may provide notice that firearms and other
2 weapons are prohibited under Section 46.03 on the premises or other
3 property, as applicable, by posting a sign at each entrance to the
4 premises or other property that:
5 (1) includes language that is identical to or
6 substantially similar to the fallowing: "Pursuant to Section 46. 03,
7 Penal Code (places weapons prohibited), a person may not carry a
8 firearm or other weapon on this property";
...

m) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 46.03 that
the actor:
(1) carries a handgun on a premises or other property on
which the carrying of a weapon is prohibited under that
section;
(2) personally received from the owner of the property, or
from another person with apparent authority to act for the
owner, notice that carrying a firearm or other weapon on the
premises or other property, as applicable, was prohibited;
and
(3) promptly departed from the premises or other property.
...
(n) The defense provided by Subsection (m) does not apply
if:

(]) a sign described by Subsection (o) was posted
prominently at each entrance to the premises or other
property, as applicable; or
(2) at the time of the offense, the actor knew that carrying a
firearm or other weapon
on the premises or other property
was prohibited.
(o) A person may provide notice that firearms and other
weapons are prohibited under Section 46.03 on the premises
or other property, as applicable, by posting a sign at each
entrance to the premises or other property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially
similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 46.03, Penal
Code (places weapons prohibited), a person may not carry a
firearm or other weapon on this property";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in
both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least
one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to
the public.
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!!!!"

powerboatr
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 2273
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:53 pm
Location: North East Texas

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#311

Post by powerboatr »

we are definitely going to need a training sheet put out by dps to use a quick reference guide.

i may download the new law to my phone or create some barney pages for quick reference



thank you everyone for the in-depth analysis
Proud to have served for over 22 Years in the U.S. Navy Certificated FAA A&P technician since 1996

cowhow
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Fort Worth
Contact:

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#312

Post by cowhow »

ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm
My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.
Agreed. And as far as I'm concerned its going to be business as usual when the bill becomes law in September. Thanks for the clarification.

K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#313

Post by K.Mooneyham »

Here is what I KNOW about whether I can carry into a specific place or not: when I see the proper signage posted in a conspicuous manner, I stay out of those places with my legally-carried firearm. I also know not to carry onto Federal property because I work on Federal property.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 30
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#314

Post by ScottDLS »

K.Mooneyham wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 10:45 am Here is what I KNOW about whether I can carry into a specific place or not: when I see the proper signage posted in a conspicuous manner, I stay out of those places with my legally-carried firearm. I also know not to carry onto Federal property because I work on Federal property.
Now define "proper signage" for each particular situation. :rules:
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

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

#315

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

There has been some discussion as to whether 30.06 and 30.07 signs will be effective as to an LTC, after Sept. 1, 2021. The issue seems to be focused on the fact that an LTC will not be required to carry a handgun in Texas, thus they will not be carrying “under the authority of” their LTC.

While some Penal Code provisions apply only when a person is carrying “under the authority” of their license (ex. TPC §46.035), this is not the case with TPC §§30.06 and 30.07.

Chas.
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
Sec. 46.035.

(a-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a partially or wholly visible handgun, regardless of whether the handgun is holstered, on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally or knowingly displays the handgun in plain view of another person:
Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”