TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
.
.
(5) a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying.

[ Image ]

This was removed in the substitute.

CJD wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
.
.
(5) a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying.

[ Image ]

This was removed in the substitute.

Yes. That's why I'm crying.

RoyGBiv wrote:

CJD wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
.
.
(5) a person who is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying.

[ Image ]

This was removed in the substitute.

Yes. That's why I'm crying.

Haha gotcha. RIP 46.15(a)(5)

Hopefully, the committee substitute will see floor amendments added to correct some or all of the stuff they took out of the original bill.

tornado wrote:

C-dub wrote:Unless you're not officially on the trip with them or a chaperon, but just happen to be at the same place at the same time like many other people.

It's a "defense to prosecution" not a "does not apply."

Anything that is not expressly an "exception" is a "defense to prosecution."

Chas.

Pawpaw wrote:Hopefully, the committee substitute will see floor amendments added to correct some or all of the stuff they took out of the original bill.

It's not going to make it to the floor.

Chas.

Is there anything we mortals can do at this point? For any of the bills that we've managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so far?

I'm really confused at this point. I don't understand if something is going through regarding OC or not.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I'm really confused at this point. I don't understand if something is going through regarding OC or not.

HB308 doesn't (and didn't) directly involve open carry at all. That's HB910/SB17.

RoyGBiv wrote:Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.

So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks

Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?

Absolutely, but I'm sure we can all agree that having a watered-down HB308 is better than having no HB308 at all.

mr1337 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.

So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks

Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?

Absolutely, but I'm sure we can all agree that having a watered-down HB308 is better than having no HB308 at all.

I don't agree.
If "Class C" is the only substantive thing we get from this bill, it's worth noting that the class c change is attached to the House version of Open Carry. There's little else remaining in HB 308 that is worth fighting over, it seems to me. Rather than accepting a bill that changes so little, it might be best to withdraw the bill at this juncture and fight again for the good version of it next session.

I may be mising something else useful in what's left of 308. If so, I reserve the right to change my position...

Since Charles said "It's not going to make it to the floor" I doubt it matters at this point.

tornado wrote:Since Charles said "It's not going to make it to the floor" I doubt it matters at this point.

Got an alert that HB 308 went to the "Hotel California" of committees....Calendars.

I don't know of that is more apropos than calling it the "Cleveland Browns" of committees. Where good bills go to languish.

RoyGBiv wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.

So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks

Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?

Absolutely, but I'm sure we can all agree that having a watered-down HB308 is better than having no HB308 at all.

I don't agree.
If "Class C" is the only substantive thing we get from this bill, it's worth noting that the class c change is attached to the House version of Open Carry. There's little else remaining in HB 308 that is worth fighting over, it seems to me. Rather than accepting a bill that changes so little, it might be best to withdraw the bill at this juncture and fight again for the good version of it next session.

I may be mising something else useful in what's left of 308. If so, I reserve the right to change my position...

It also reduces the first offense penalty to Class C for other §46.035 violations. It's not the as-filed version by any means, but it would be an improvement. It's a moot point now.

Chas.

Feeling a bit of buyers remorse now, that I read through some of this thread again. I am sorry this didn't happen. I know it has been a big priority for a long time. How can we make it a winning priority next session. Will there be an analysis, somewhere if not here.