TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:08 am

hitwsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:59 am So, if Constitutional Carry is approved, then what would be the advantage to having an LTC?

No NICS check for buying guns, reciprocity with other states, Federal GFSZA exemption.

Possibly exclusion from 30.06 and 30.07, depending on how its written.

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:08 am

hitwsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:59 am So, if Constitutional Carry is approved, then what would be the advantage to having an LTC?

No NICS check for buying guns, reciprocity with other states, Federal GFSZA exemption.

Possibly exclusion from 30.06 and 30.07, depending on how its written.

Not with Stickland's bill. But I have heard that a certain attorney who may or may not be involved on this board may have some ideas about a CC bill that removes the currently prohibited places (sporting events, etc) for license holders but keeps those prohibited places for non license holders.

That is a bill I would start making phone calls for!

canvasbck wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:22 am

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:25 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:08 am

hitwsr wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:59 am So, if Constitutional Carry is approved, then what would be the advantage to having an LTC?

No NICS check for buying guns, reciprocity with other states, Federal GFSZA exemption.

Possibly exclusion from 30.06 and 30.07, depending on how its written.

Not with Stickland's bill. But I have heard that a certain attorney who may or may not be involved on this board may have some ideas about a CC bill that removes the currently prohibited places (sporting events, etc) for license holders but keeps those prohibited places for non license holders.

That is a bill I would start making phone calls for!

This concept of eliminating the prohibited places for LTC holders and permitless carry for the rest, is a great idea. Especially if you consider the political viability. Personally I would prefer no permit requirement at all, but realistically rights are expanded a piece at a time.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:06 amWhat about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...

Yes, there is no exception for anyone in the proposed 30.06 and 30.07. This will get all of the police organizations to oppose it very quickly. Whether we like that part or not, we need their cooperation to get anything like this passed.

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:02 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:06 amWhat about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...

Yes, there is no exception for anyone in the proposed 30.06 and 30.07. This will get all of the police organizations to oppose it very quickly. Whether we like that part or not, we need their cooperation to get anything like this passed.

Or we will theoretically be back to 1995-1996 when 30.05 purportedly applied to everyone, licensed or otherwise allowed to carry. Or was it 2001 when the exception to 30.05 for LEO and CHL was added?

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:32 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:02 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:06 amWhat about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...

Yes, there is no exception for anyone in the proposed 30.06 and 30.07. This will get all of the police organizations to oppose it very quickly. Whether we like that part or not, we need their cooperation to get anything like this passed.

Or we will theoretically be back to 1995-1996 when 30.05 purportedly applied to everyone, licensed or otherwise allowed to carry. Or was it 2001 when the exception to 30.05 for LEO and CHL was added?

The way that 30.06/07 are worded they only apply to "License Holders" meaning those carrying under the authority of an LTC. Since LEOs carry under an authority other than an LTC, then they are no subject to that at all, and never were.

AJSully421 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:26 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:32 am

srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:02 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 11:06 amWhat about LEO and Special Investigators (Feds) who are not currently subject to those sections...

Yes, there is no exception for anyone in the proposed 30.06 and 30.07. This will get all of the police organizations to oppose it very quickly. Whether we like that part or not, we need their cooperation to get anything like this passed.

Or we will theoretically be back to 1995-1996 when 30.05 purportedly applied to everyone, licensed or otherwise allowed to carry. Or was it 2001 when the exception to 30.05 for LEO and CHL was added?

The way that 30.06/07 are worded they only apply to "License Holders" meaning those carrying under the authority of an LTC. Since LEOs carry under an authority other than an LTC, then they are no subject to that at all, and never were.

Yes, but that is not the way the new 30.06/7 in Stickland's bill is worded.

And from 1995 until Sept. 1997 there WAS no 30.06, so the Democrat AG at the time wrote an opinion that 30.05 applied.

30.05 had no exception for LEO (or CHL) until 2001.

I know because I kept all my CHL 16's since 1995.

My only suggested improvement to Stickland's bill would be to completely eliminate 30.06/7. Put the specific sign requirements back into 30.05 in a new paragraph, and leave the exception and defense respectively to 30.05 for LEO and LTC. Or if LTC defense in 30.05 won't fly, then make it a class C and add the exception for emergency volunteers that is currently in 30.06/7 and get rid of them. I'm sure there is some obscure procedural/political reason why my idea won't work... so in the meantime maybe TSRA and NRA can just keep the Legislature from making anything worse!

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:39 pm

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 12:18 pm https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB357

Text:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... 00357I.htm

I haven't fully absorbed all of this bill because it modifies SO many sections of Texas Law, but it looks like it removes the licensing from the requirement to carry a handgun, makes 30.06/7 apply to all persons carrying a handgun and adds 30.07 to the wrongful exclusion process...

More to read and digest. I look forward to hearing Charles' take on this.

I too have to analyze it in detail, but even skimming it shows it will never pass. It includes too many deal-breaking provisions, opens too many code provisions up to anti-gun amendments and modifies TPC §§30.07 & 30.07 to apply to both licensed and unlicensed carry. The latter alone is enough to kill the bill.

Chas.

Maybe we will just try to move the Overton Window with it instead?

Do Texas legislators take a special class on making things had to understand for non-lawyers?


What's wrong with a bill to amend 46.02 by deleting the red text?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

ninjabread wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:03 pm Do Texas legislators take a special class on making things had to understand for non-lawyers?


What's wrong with a bill to amend 46.02 by deleting the red text?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun or club; and
(2) is not:
(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

Well, for one thing it would make open carry on one's own property illegal unless licensed.

This was assigned to Homeland Security & Public Safety committee. Is it safe to assume it's DOA?

SQLGeek wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 3:56 pm This was assigned to Homeland Security & Public Safety committee. Is it safe to assume it's DOA?

I'd venture to say yes...

https://house.texas.gov/committees/comm ... ittee=C420

I figured as much. I called out Bonnen on his Facebook post about it.

I'm heated. I gave him a chance to back up his word. I guess he decided HB357 wasn't going to hit the floor for a vote.

And evidently we are the fringe of the gun owners.

There were pro-2a chairs in the past for this committee and the bills did not make it thru to a committee vote then. I can just about guarantee that the chair will vote against pro-2a legislation. I cannot say that the entire committee will. I am still waiting to see if Bonnen's chair appointments and committee assignments result in greater individual liberties.

I haven't even seen that committee meet yet, has anyone? have I missed them? the Pub Ed committee is actually listening to bills today....imagine that!