TexasCHLforum.com

casp625 wrote:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the 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 license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

From a practical standpoint, doesn't this mean that you are handed a ticket which you may pay an automatic $200.00 fine, but if you want to go to court to argue the point, you then may face a misdemeanor A instead of misdemeanor C?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

Charles, what I'm still not clear on is whether HB910 created a 30.07 sign for openly carried handguns, or does 30.06 now apply to both OC and CC?

Nevermind.... I just went and read the text of the bill. It does create 30.07 for OC. But the. That begs the question: does the change in penalties apply only to 30.06, or to both 30.06 and 30.07?

Amendment number 9 to HB 910 that was approved says any city over 750000 population can regulate open carry ...
That covers Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio .. The way I read it .. Anyone see it different..?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

Charles, what I'm still not clear on is whether HB910 created a 30.07 sign for openly carried handguns, or does 30.06 now apply to both OC and CC?

Nevermind.... I just went and read the text of the bill. It does create 30.07 for OC. But the. That begs the question: does the change in penalties apply only to 30.06, or to both 30.06 and 30.07?

The second part of the amendment (the page 31 part) changes the penalty for 30.07 (page 30 starts 30.07 and it continues to page 31). So the amendment changes both 30.06 and 30.07 penalties. I do wonder if the text of the amendment actually captures the author's intent.

viking1000 wrote:Amendment number 9 to HB 910 that was approved says any city over 750000 population can regulate open carry ...
That covers Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio .. The way I read it .. Anyone see it different..?

Amendment 9 was an additional amendment to amendment 8, which was ultimately tabled, so their is no city preemption based on population.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the 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 license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is based off the assumption that "miss enter the property" or "don't see the notice" provide exemptions for the Class A, but I don't see this anywhere in the code.

Scenario: You walk into a store that has 30.06 posted but for whatever reason you didn't see it. First of all if you are concealed carrying what are the odds someone will know. If you're open carrying and someone tells you that it's not allowed you just leave. The only way it would be a problem is if you don't leave and they call the police, or the police were in the store and saw you. If you leave and they call the police you'll more than likely be long gone by the time they get there. The last time I checked store owners can't issue tickets. I seriously doubt this is going to be a common occurrence. I've never been asked if I was carrying while in any business. I usually frequent the same businesses so know if they're posted or not. If it's a place I've never been before I make sure to look. I feel this amendment basically protects the CHL from being arrested and losing their license due to inadvertent or accidentally entering a posted premises.

Scenario: You walk into a store that has 30.06 posted but for whatever reason you didn't see it. First of all if you are concealed carrying what are the odds someone will know. If you're open carrying and someone tells you that it's not allowed you just leave. The only way it would be a problem is if you don't leave and they call the police, or the police were in the store and saw you. If you leave and they call the police you'll more than likely be long gone by the time they get there. The last time I checked store owners can't issue tickets. I seriously doubt this is going to be a common occurrence. I've never been asked if I was carrying while in any business. I usually frequent the same businesses so know if they're posted or not. If it's a place I've never been before I make sure to look. I feel this amendment basically protects the CHL from being arrested and losing their license due to inadvertent or accidentally entering a posted premises.

The problem I see is that when you walk past a 30.06 sign you failed to see, you have still been presented with effective notice. You just didn't recognize it. You can lead a horse to a 30.06 sign, but you can't assume that makes him disarm, I guess.

As far as tickets, citations, or charges filed, I'm pretty sure you don't have to remain at the scene of the crime. Burgle and run, and a burgler can still get charged, tried, and convicted.

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the 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 license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is based off the assumption that "miss enter the property" or "don't see the notice" provide exemptions for the Class A, but I don't see this anywhere in the code.

The Class C is the new penalty while exceptions are given for Class A... Seems to me they have to prove you should get a Class A, not the other way around.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the 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 license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is based off the assumption that "miss enter the property" or "don't see the notice" provide exemptions for the Class A, but I don't see this anywhere in the code.

The Class C is the new penalty while exceptions are given for Class A... Seems to me they have to prove you should get a Class A, not the other way around.

I guess you're right in that, at a minimum, it seems to increase the burden of proof.

treadlightly wrote:

Scenario: You walk into a store that has 30.06 posted but for whatever reason you didn't see it. First of all if you are concealed carrying what are the odds someone will know. If you're open carrying and someone tells you that it's not allowed you just leave. The only way it would be a problem is if you don't leave and they call the police, or the police were in the store and saw you. If you leave and they call the police you'll more than likely be long gone by the time they get there. The last time I checked store owners can't issue tickets. I seriously doubt this is going to be a common occurrence. I've never been asked if I was carrying while in any business. I usually frequent the same businesses so know if they're posted or not. If it's a place I've never been before I make sure to look. I feel this amendment basically protects the CHL from being arrested and losing their license due to inadvertent or accidentally entering a posted premises.

The problem I see is that when you walk past a 30.06 sign you failed to see, you have still been presented with effective notice. You just didn't recognize it. You can lead a horse to a 30.06 sign, but you can't assume that makes him disarm, I guess.

As far as tickets, citations, or charges filed, I'm pretty sure you don't have to remain at the scene of the crime. Burgle and run, and a burgler can still get charged, tried, and convicted.

Interesting discussion...

AMENDMENT NO. 6 - REMARKS REPRESENTATIVE S. TURNER: Representative Phillips, why would we not require people that carry guns to have insurance? It seems a reasonable request.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: First, to say in a broader picture, I don ’ t see that in the second amendment of the Constitution that it says that you have the right to bear arms if you have insurance. I know that ’ s—

S. TURNER: Some would argue that anybody should be able to carry a gun, that there shouldn ’ t be any restrictions. Are you a supporter of the constitutional right to carry then?

PHILLIPS: I ’ m very supportive of the constitutional right to carry, and I ’ m—

S. TURNER: Is this a constitutional right to carry bill?

PHILLIPS: This is allowing under our Constitution to—

S. TURNER: But is this a constitutional right to carry bill?

PHILLIPS: Mr. Turner, what I ’ m saying is that ’ s just a first and foremost. If you would like to make this a constitutional right to carry, you might have a chance to vote on that in a little bit.

S. TURNER: Are you going to accept that amendment?

PHILLIPS: I might. If you keep talking it up it sounds like—

S. TURNER: Then let ’ s just stop, and let me just come up with my amendment to have a right to constitutionally carry. Let ’ s just end it right now. If you tell me you ’ re going to accept it, I ’ ll go down there and I ’ ll write it up.

PHILLIPS: What I do know Mr.—

S. TURNER: If I write it up, will you accept it?

PHILLIPS: Mr. Turner, will you listen? What I do know is that the senate set the parameters of this—set the parameters of what we ’ re going to do, and they passed very similar to this. That ’ s what I ’ m trying to keep it to, Mr. Turner. They debated the insurance. So Mr. Turner, I just disagree that insurance is necessary, and that ’ s why I move to table.

S. TURNER: I understand, Chairman, and I ’ m just saying that to me people should be responsible. I think that ’ s what Representative Dutton is getting to, people should be responsible. To a certain extent people are not responsible, and there ought to be insurance. That ’ s the only thing I think he ’ s asking for.

PHILLIPS: I agree, responsible, and I think we’ve had 20 years demonstrated responsibility of license holders and will continue to do that, with all due respect. (Huberty now present) Representative

Phillips moved to table Amendment No. 6.

##############Stevie-D's comments

Now po little Sylvester tried his darndest, and you gotta give him credit at the last minute to put a monkey in the wrench on this whole deal...

It illustrates the democrat/liberal mindset on the issue...

I still believe those of us who choose to do so will be great ambassadors to the Second Amendment, and will conduct ourselves in a mature, cordial manner in this state from now on...

Now...Maybe its time to do some holster shopping??? I see this going to be a fashion show item on this website...Gonna drive some people insane!!!

BTW, reading the minutes...I may have missed something...

Did the Strickland "gemaneness amendment" screw this deal up???

I see the bill passed (engrossed)??? but maybe I'm misreading it, because I do not see a definitive final vote on the bill and approved amendments...

Still gonna go holster shopping111

Heck, go read it yourselves...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I feel like this process has ben boxed up and set next to the Ark of the Covenent in that warehouse no one knows about...

Muh bad...

Tracker wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

Honestly, I'm not sure that's always the owners intent. I know of 2 small business owners that have gun buster signs posted but have no problem with licensed CC. And they're both aware that 30.06 is required to prevent licensed CC on the property.

In their case they posted a gun buster sign so that if anything should ever happen they will have the ability to show a company policy against the unlicensed carry of a weapon.

I view gun buster signs as a warning to those that carry unlicensed.