TexasCHLforum.com

mloamiller wrote:At first glance, the law does seem to be specific to 30.06 (concealed carry) but does not mention 30.07 (open carry). I've heard it said that this bill was passed before the Open Carry bill was passed, which is why it doesn't specifically mention 30.07. However, even though it doesn't specifically mention 30.07, there may be enough wiggle room to apply it anyway.

SB273
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

With the passing of Open Carry, there is no longer such a thing as a "concealed handgun license"; it's a "license to carry." Therefore, that specific phrase is either completely null-and-void (no such thing any longer), or it must be interpreted as "...or by any sign expressly referring to ... a license to carry." If the later, then it seems to equally apply to open carry, which is allowed by the same license as concealed carry.

INAL, but it's an interesting thought.

roadkill wrote:I need to stop by the corpus city hall soon. One of the four entrances has been closed since 9/11 for security and now two entrances are employee only leaving only one for the public. They have now installed metal detectors. Going to be interesting to see how they handle conceal carry and especially open carry given the counties stance on it thus far. The appraisal district also has a metal detector and at one time was posted 30.06. The interesting thing about them is the detector is maned by a private security guard. Something tells me city hall will be the same. We aren't required to show them ID. Wonder if someone with OTC leanings will push that issue here or in another location/county? I just feel since open carry is now legal local governments are trying anything they can to try and prohibit it.

roadkill wrote:I need to stop by the corpus city hall soon. One of the four entrances has been closed since 9/11 for security and now two entrances are employee only leaving only one for the public. They have now installed metal detectors. Going to be interesting to see how they handle conceal carry and especially open carry given the counties stance on it thus far. The appraisal district also has a metal detector and at one time was posted 30.06. The interesting thing about them is the detector is maned by a private security guard. Something tells me city hall will be the same. We aren't required to show them ID. Wonder if someone with OTC leanings will push that issue here or in another location/county? I just feel since open carry is now legal local governments are trying anything they can to try and prohibit it.

Seabear wrote:They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

VoiceofReason wrote:Texas needs to have a law like Florida's pre-emption statute with penalties.

The 2014 Florida Statutes 790.33 (3)PROHIBITIONS; PENALTIES.—
(c) If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil fine of up to $5,000 against the elected or appointed local government official or officials or administrative agency head under whose jurisdiction the violation occurred.
(d) Except as required by applicable law, public funds may not be used to defend or reimburse the unlawful conduct of any person found to have knowingly and willfully violated this section.

That would stop a lot of the "games".

RHenriksen wrote:

Seabear wrote:They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

Link??

Seabear wrote:They changed their mind today. LOL They decided to follow the law. Said they would wait a few months and see if there were any changes in the law.

mloamiller wrote:At first glance, the law does seem to be specific to 30.06 (concealed carry) but does not mention 30.07 (open carry). I've heard it said that this bill was passed before the Open Carry bill was passed, which is why it doesn't specifically mention 30.07. However, even though it doesn't specifically mention 30.07, there may be enough wiggle room to apply it anyway.

SB273
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

With the passing of Open Carry, there is no longer such a thing as a "concealed handgun license"; it's a "license to carry." Therefore, that specific phrase is either completely null-and-void (no such thing any longer), or it must be interpreted as "...or by any sign expressly referring to ... a license to carry." If the later, then it seems to equally apply to open carry, which is allowed by the same license as concealed carry.

INAL, but it's an interesting thought.

dhoobler wrote:

mloamiller wrote:At first glance, the law does seem to be specific to 30.06 (concealed carry) but does not mention 30.07 (open carry). I've heard it said that this bill was passed before the Open Carry bill was passed, which is why it doesn't specifically mention 30.07. However, even though it doesn't specifically mention 30.07, there may be enough wiggle room to apply it anyway.

SB273
Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

With the passing of Open Carry, there is no longer such a thing as a "concealed handgun license"; it's a "license to carry." Therefore, that specific phrase is either completely null-and-void (no such thing any longer), or it must be interpreted as "...or by any sign expressly referring to ... a license to carry." If the later, then it seems to equally apply to open carry, which is allowed by the same license as concealed carry.

INAL, but it's an interesting thought.

I wonder how long it will be before some local government entity (Hays County) will claim that they cannot be fined for posting a 30.06 sign because SB 273 makes reference to "Concealed Handgun License". They will claim that they are excluding "License to Carry", which is not referenced by SB 273.