Page 3 of 20
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:23 am
by ralewis
Scott Farkus wrote:ralewis wrote:Oh, I also specifically months ago sent a note requesting sponsorship/support for HB560.
And I'm skeptical we'll clear the deck if unlicensed, constitutional carry passes. I can't really understand why broadly reducing off limits locations doesn't get traction. Maybe licensed folks like me need to be more politically vocal/active.
Absent some sort of compromise/amendment to address licensed carry off-limits locations, I can't see how HB1911 helps my ability to protect my family, and might actually further constrain it.
I hear you. I haven't followed the legislative stuff as closely this session as I usually do but this whole CC issue has been confusing to me. I had pretty much assumed that after the knock-down drag-out it took to get OC last time, there wouldn't be any political capital left for another high-profile fight, and so an HB560 type bill could quietly slip in under the radar. I guess since several other states have adopted CC in the interim, we decided the time was right? I don't know, but I trust our political folks who know what to push and when and this is where we are right now. I do wish there would have been some kind of compromise package presented that would get some other things (like closing the government building loophole), but we'll see.
What else could possibly be "on deck" if we get constitutional carry? We already knocked out Open Carry and Campus Carry - I can't think of any other elephants in the room.
Oh those elephants are sneaky and creep up slowly but forcefully.
I spend a month in PA every year, and carry while there every day. I just wish TX would aspire to this usually blue (but thankfully RED this cycle) state off limits locations where you can carry in a bar and sporting event. Also, signs have no force of law there, and you have to be asked to leave before it's a crime. I understand why we did what we did here in TX, but my PA data point influences my opinion on where I'd prefer TX end up.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:44 am
by RSX11
Therefore the sign should also be printed in German French and Arabic with 1 inch minimum letters.
You're showing a shocking insensitivity to those who are differently-abled by not also requiring that the signs be printed in Braille as well.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:48 am
by allisji
RSX11 wrote:Therefore the sign should also be printed in German French and Arabic with 1 inch minimum letters.
You're showing a shocking insensitivity to those who are differently-abled by not also requiring that the signs be printed in Braille as well.
I think that there needs to be an audible voice/tone alert system requirement, just in case the signage isn't posted conspicuously enough.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 9:57 am
by Liberty
It's a war on 3 fronts. Mad Mom's, TSRA and the OCT. I think the CC issues have the support of 2 fronts, HB 560 only has support from one front. TSRA doesn't control the gun agenda anymore because it's a 3 way tug of war.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:15 am
by Jusme
Liberty wrote:It's a war on 3 fronts. Mad Mom's, TSRA and the OCT. I think the CC issues have the support of 2 fronts, HB 560 only has support from one front. TSRA doesn't control the gun agenda anymore because it's a 3 way tug of war.
There seems to be a disconnect between the Legislature and those of us who have jumped through hoops to become LTC holders, endured an increase of prohibited places, proved ourselves to be, by far the most law abiding group in history, paid expensive licensing fees, and voted for those, who we fully believed have our best interest at heart.
I guess that's why it's so hard to understand the reasons that so much capital has been expended on unlicensed carry, which will free up some people, even though at the same time, licensing fees are proposed to be reduced, which will allow even more people to be able to afford an LTC.
This legislation, at least for me, is like kissing your sister. It may keep harmony in the family, but it doesn't work out the inheritance issues. JMHO
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:45 am
by Soccerdad1995
So, current valid 30.06 and 30.07 signs would become invalid, effective September 1, 2017, if this version of the bill passes?
I'm not opposed to changing the required signage wording every year or so. Eventually, most business owners might just give up and decide that they will tell someone to leave if that person is causing a problem (due to their gun or anything else).
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute and HB560
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:21 am
by canvasbck
Scott Farkus wrote:Ruark wrote:Sheesh. So if a business had a 30.07 sign, but no gunbuster sign, and I wanted to go in carrying openly, I could toss my LTC into the glove box before I went into the store. Then I'd be a legal unlicensed carrier.......????
This is all going to be idiotically complicated. You won't find 1 business owner in 100,000 that will have a correct understanding of everything.
It's already borderline idiotically complicated, but yeah, this would push it over the top. I'd like to see some grand bargain where we eliminate 30.06/30.07 in exchange for a gunbuster sign not having the force of law on those with an LTC.
Having said that, I'm at the point where I desperately hope constitutional carry passes this session because it seems we've again sacrificed some mighty good legislation (i.e. HB560) to get it done, just like we did in 2015 to get open carry. If constitutional carry fails... oh man, I don't want to think about it.
May as well start thinking about it.
If I were a betting man, I would bet on CSHB1911 dying in calendars. I think (at best) we will see church security teams and a reduction in LTC fees. This session will go down as one of the least productive in decades as it relates to expansion of 2a rights.
Supermajority my hind end........
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:09 pm
by AF-Odin
I agree with Canvasbck. Least productive for a number of reasons. I truly believe that we have squandered a majority in both houses and a very pro-gun governor. Just remember the threats that were made a while back by one of the leading democrats in Texas political circles that the Republicans will continue to win into the early 2020s, but then they will be outnumbered by the demographics and it will be pay-back time. If we cannot get our act together and quickly to line up behind what should be "no-brainer" legislation, then we deserve the pay-back that will come with liberal legislation.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:20 pm
by SQLGeek
Russell wrote:I am still beyond frustrated with the amount of political capital and points used up on this (in my mind) useless bill.
I threw a good amount of money at TSRA this session in the belief that they were going to push HB 560. I was proven a fool, there wasn't a single peep from them about it at all.
Never again.
That is perhaps the most distressing thing to me in this entire ordeal. I admit I've been watching from afar so not as plugged in as I would like to be but the optics do not look good.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:40 pm
by locke_n_load
jmorris wrote:The way I read it, the new verbiage for 06 & 07 prohibits both licensed and unlicensed carry. The text within brackets [] will be struck. Going to reduce the size of the sign.
SECTION 24. The heading to Section 30.06, Penal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY PERSON [LICENSE HOLDER] WITH [A]
CONCEALED HANDGUN.
SECTION 25. Sections 30.06(a), (c), (d), and (e), Penal
Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person [license holder] commits an offense if the
person [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
person [license holder] with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) ["License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
[(3)] "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by person [license holder] with [a] concealed
handgun), a person [licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law),] may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
That was the introduced bill text, the Committee substitute text does not modify 30.06 at all and only changes "belt or shoulder holster" to "holster" in 30.07.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:42 pm
by locke_n_load
ScottDLS wrote:jmorris wrote:The way I read it, the new verbiage for 06 & 07 prohibits both licensed and unlicensed carry. The text within brackets [] will be struck. Going to reduce the size of the sign.
SECTION 24. The heading to Section 30.06, Penal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY PERSON [LICENSE HOLDER] WITH [A]
CONCEALED HANDGUN.
SECTION 25. Sections 30.06(a), (c), (d), and (e), Penal
Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person [license holder] commits an offense if the
person [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
person [license holder] with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(c) In this section:
(1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.05(b).
(2) ["License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
[(3)] "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written
language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by person [license holder] with [a] concealed
handgun), a person [licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law),] may not enter this
property with a concealed handgun"; or
I think you got it. Keeps 06 and 07 as the (only) way to prohibit licensed/unlicensed carry under GC 411 authority, it still makes 30.05 irrelevant to handgun carry, and still allows for MPA, LEO, and employee carry past 30.06/7.
Committee Substitute text found in the OP Scott, doesn't touch 30.06 at all, changes holster requirement for 30.07, and does not specify signage for unlicensed carry(makes me think gunbuster) and changes trespassing because of unlicensed carry to a class C.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:20 pm
by KLB
This thread conclusively proves that our carry laws are too complicated.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 1:31 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
KLB wrote:This thread conclusively proves that our carry laws are too complicated.
Re: HB1911 Com Substitute
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2017 2:35 pm
by Ruark
RSX11 wrote:Therefore the sign should also be printed in German French and Arabic with 1 inch minimum letters.
You're showing a shocking insensitivity to those who are differently-abled by not also requiring that the signs be printed in Braille as well.
A, uh... blind person carrying a gun? Let's not go down that road....... now, that being said, an audio warning might not be too farfetched. There are an awful lot of decent, law-abiding people out there who are illiterate.