TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kristv.com/story/30767916/nu ... RIS_6_News

Nueces county is going to ban OC in county buildings including the courthouse. I understand the courthouse and how 30.07 won't apply to the courtrooms but can they ban OC from other buildings as well? My understanding is they can't.

They can't but the new bill to put them on notice for infringing only covers 30.06 for now. I believe open carry was passed afterwards so the language to report 30.07 violations isn't in the bill. So while it's not legal, there isn't a recourse to resolve it currently. So I suspect some districts are going to use this to their advantage and do it while they can.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about SB 273 not covering 30.07

That is correct as far as I know.

I wonder what would happen if someone reported an "illegal" 30.07 sign via the same process that has been established for 30.06 signs? Granted, the language isn't there to include 30.07, but I think it's safe to say the intent is there.

They cannot and even if they do, it is not enforceable. The commissioner can say whatever he wants, DA is the prosecutor. Check the law...

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.

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.

Clean up bill for 2017.

Beiruty 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.

Clean up bill for 2017.

You betcha.

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.

Yeah, I've been pondering the exact same point each time someone brought up the whole 30.07 passing second as it does seem that it falls into that not by that 30.06 subcode, but because doesn't the sign also say (if they have the correct language) "a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" which is where both 30.06 and 30.07 are both covered?

Pariah3j wrote:They can't but the new bill to put them on notice for infringing only covers 30.06 for now. I believe open carry was passed afterwards so the language to report 30.07 violations isn't in the bill. So while it's not legal, there isn't a recourse to resolve it currently. So I suspect some districts are going to use this to their advantage and do it while they can.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about SB 273 not covering 30.07

But I hope that all of these get documented, photos included, as that will probably help in giving the legislature something to talk about for both any clean-up and the games being played. They clearly KNOW that they are in violation by posting the 30.07 signage, just because there is no penalty for doing so doesn't mitigate that.

Glockster wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:They can't but the new bill to put them on notice for infringing only covers 30.06 for now. I believe open carry was passed afterwards so the language to report 30.07 violations isn't in the bill. So while it's not legal, there isn't a recourse to resolve it currently. So I suspect some districts are going to use this to their advantage and do it while they can.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about SB 273 not covering 30.07

But I hope that all of these get documented, photos included, as that will probably help in giving the legislature something to talk about for both any clean-up and the games being played. They clearly KNOW that they are in violation by posting the 30.07 signage, just because there is no penalty for doing so doesn't mitigate that.

Wasn't trying to say that it was acceptable, just explaining why I think they are doing it - because they think they can get away with it.

Pariah3j wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:They can't but the new bill to put them on notice for infringing only covers 30.06 for now. I believe open carry was passed afterwards so the language to report 30.07 violations isn't in the bill. So while it's not legal, there isn't a recourse to resolve it currently. So I suspect some districts are going to use this to their advantage and do it while they can.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about SB 273 not covering 30.07

But I hope that all of these get documented, photos included, as that will probably help in giving the legislature something to talk about for both any clean-up and the games being played. They clearly KNOW that they are in violation by posting the 30.07 signage, just because there is no penalty for doing so doesn't mitigate that.

Wasn't trying to say that it was acceptable, just explaining why I think they are doing it - because they think they can get away with it.

Sure, I understand that. Sorry if I left you feeling like I'd said that!

Pariah3j wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Pariah3j wrote:They can't but the new bill to put them on notice for infringing only covers 30.06 for now. I believe open carry was passed afterwards so the language to report 30.07 violations isn't in the bill. So while it's not legal, there isn't a recourse to resolve it currently. So I suspect some districts are going to use this to their advantage and do it while they can.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about SB 273 not covering 30.07

But I hope that all of these get documented, photos included, as that will probably help in giving the legislature something to talk about for both any clean-up and the games being played. They clearly KNOW that they are in violation by posting the 30.07 signage, just because there is no penalty for doing so doesn't mitigate that.

Wasn't trying to say that it was acceptable, just explaining why I think they are doing it - because they think they can get away with it.

Why shouldn't they get away with posting 30.07, they got away with posting 30.06 for years?

After witnessing the behavior of some of the open carry support groups I can understand why some would want a 30.07 sign and not a 30.06 sign posted even in government buildings. Not sure if I agree, but I can understand their reasoning.

twomillenium wrote:After witnessing the behavior of some of the open carry support groups I can understand why some would want a 30.07 sign and not a 30.06 sign posted even in government buildings. Not sure if I agree, but I can understand their reasoning.

Yes, but they can wish in one hand and....the important point is that it is a violation of law to post either signage, just no penalty yet for posting 30.07.

And governments act as if they don't understand why there is such an us vs them attitude.