TexasCHLforum.com

jerry_r60 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Thanks to all involved.



Just for the cherry on top, another OCT member was arrested today for openly wearing a blue gun in a holster when he tried to enter the capitol.

Let me see. My buddy stuck his hand into a hornets' nest and got stung. I think I'll try it and see what happens.

Chas.

It's too twisted to be real but it's almost like the OCT group is a brilliant scheme created by the Bloomberg group/money to fight from "inside". A Trojan Horse.

jason812 wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Thanks to all involved.



Just for the cherry on top, another OCT member was arrested today for openly wearing a blue gun in a holster when he tried to enter the capitol.

Let me see. My buddy stuck his hand into a hornets' nest and got stung. I think I'll try it and see what happens.

Chas.

It's too twisted to be real but it's almost like the OCT group is a brilliant scheme created by the Bloomberg group/money to fight from "inside". A Trojan Horse.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I would not put it past the move on or hands up don't shoot types to purposely say they are pro gun and then do the most stupid things to make the movement look like it is filled with people of Forest Gump's IQ level. The way things are today, I think it is a very good possibility that some of the knuckleheads are plants to derail or cause as much grief as possible.

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.PDF
Only 30.06 was amended with the last amendment..

Lines 22-29 are relating to 30.07 are they not? Page 31 deals with 30.07.

Thanks for the clarification CJD. After re-reading the amendment, 30.06 AND 30.07 is actually covered with this amendment. Per the Amendment:

On page 31, strike line 26 and substitute the following:
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

And per the amendment, Page 31, Line 26 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... df#page=31) specifically deals with the penalty for violation 30.07. So YES, the penalty would be a Class C for concealed carry AND open carry unless you were told to depart and failed to do so!

Or are given written notice. The amendment says "after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart."

Subsection (b) says "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.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.PDF
Only 30.06 was amended with the last amendment..

Lines 22-29 are relating to 30.07 are they not? Page 31 deals with 30.07.

Thanks for the clarification CJD. After re-reading the amendment, 30.06 AND 30.07 is actually covered with this amendment. Per the Amendment:

On page 31, strike line 26 and substitute the following:
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

And per the amendment, Page 31, Line 26 (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... df#page=31) specifically deals with the penalty for violation 30.07. So YES, the penalty would be a Class C for concealed carry AND open carry unless you were told to depart and failed to do so!

Or are given written notice. The amendment says "after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart."

Subsection (b) says "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.

Sorry, this is what I meant. However, it would still be a major win for us since it would only be a Class C misdemeanor if we inadvertently walk past a sign. Class A would only apply if we received notice and failed to depart. In terms of written notice wouldn't it come down to proving we saw the sign and blatantly ignored it. When the amendment was first offered, it was stated to protect against innocently missing a valid sign and being charged with a Class A.

locke_n_load wrote:The amendment that passed does actually apply to both OC and CC, so walking past a valid sign would be a class C misdemeanor for either form of carry. It was hard to read everything on my phone. Page 30 starts the section on 30.07 and page 31 continues it, line 26 states that it's a class A, the amendment makes it a class C. Awesome.
Awesome.

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote: Or are given written notice. The amendment says "after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart."

Subsection (b) says "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.

Sorry, this is what I meant. However, it would still be a major win for us since it would only be a Class C misdemeanor if we inadvertently walk past a sign. Class A would only apply if we received notice and failed to depart. In terms of written notice wouldn't it come down to proving we saw the sign and blatantly ignored it. When the amendment was first offered, it was stated to protect against innocently missing a valid sign and being charged with a Class A.

It may just be me, but nowhere in the code does it say you must SEE the sign for it to be valid:

""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 holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:The amendment that passed does actually apply to both OC and CC, so walking past a valid sign would be a class C misdemeanor for either form of carry. It was hard to read everything on my phone. Page 30 starts the section on 30.07 and page 31 continues it, line 26 states that it's a class A, the amendment makes it a class C. Awesome.
Awesome.

If it drops to a Class C would you still forfeit your CHL?

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote: Or are given written notice. The amendment says "after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart."

Subsection (b) says "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.

Sorry, this is what I meant. However, it would still be a major win for us since it would only be a Class C misdemeanor if we inadvertently walk past a sign. Class A would only apply if we received notice and failed to depart. In terms of written notice wouldn't it come down to proving we saw the sign and blatantly ignored it. When the amendment was first offered, it was stated to protect against innocently missing a valid sign and being charged with a Class A.

It may just be me, but nowhere in the code does it say you must SEE the sign for it to be valid:

""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 holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public."

I agree. But then, what exactly would be the purpose of this amendment? If a store posts a valid 30.06 sign and you don't see it, then by reason, you received effective notice thus making it an automatic Class A misdemeanor? Under what circumstances would the Class C misdemeanor apply?

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:The amendment that passed does actually apply to both OC and CC, so walking past a valid sign would be a class C misdemeanor for either form of carry. It was hard to read everything on my phone. Page 30 starts the section on 30.07 and page 31 continues it, line 26 states that it's a class A, the amendment makes it a class C. Awesome.
Awesome.

If it drops to a Class C would you still forfeit your CHL?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Rep. strickland is going to be one and done.

I certainly hope so!

Chas.

“Representative Phillips, are you aware that someone else has filed a bill that they care about, that 100,000 Texans have signed a petition for, held six rallies at this Capitol and have been lobbying the legislature for a hearing in your committee for months?” Stickland asked.

He had earlier accused Speaker of the House Joe Straus and his top lieutenants of “singlehandedly” obstructing his provision when he was told the House parliamentarian had ruled that his measure was not germane to the open carry bill.

Phillips told Stickland that he had himself — and the Senate — to blame for his bill not advancing.

“The fate of your bill was cast when the Senate decided it was not going to take up constitutional carry,” he said. “And in how you treated other members of this chamber… the way those who support your bill have treated members of this house, their families, and their staff.”