I was told that this was in because they want OC with the required holster or complete concealed carry. Not a lackadaisical conceal carry. This is there to enforce the difference.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Open Carry filed
- Thread starter Harleyman007
- Start date
I was told that this was in because they want OC with the required holster or complete concealed carry. Not a lackadaisical conceal carry. This is there to enforce the difference.
My understanding is that this was included to help get backing by LE agencies. I find it odd that is states "resistance" and not retention though.
honkytonkrolltide
Regular Member
This is already causing confusion and the bill hasn't even been passed. IMHO, they should eliminate "concealed" and "non-concealled" all together and just change it to a handgun carry permit/law. I'm originally from TN and that's where I hold my permit. We went from CCP, to HCP in 2005,there is no distinction. There is no real difference between OC and "printing" if we wanna split hairs. Isn't that the point of wanting OC, not to have to worry "Oh, am I "printing"....?" I think the biggest hurdle would be educating John Q. Public of the new laws.
zekester
Regular Member
I have emailed Senator Carlos I. Uresti of my district to have him sign on and support, I think he will not....but I will let you know.
tico
Founder's Club Member
Just got off the phone with Bryan Smith and Noah Gilliam from Rep. Lavender's office thanking them for filing HB700, but also wanting to clarify the problems with modifying 30.06.
They say that the NRA asked them to make those changes to get the bill passed but they're aware of the problems and will be amending it. I asked for them to either create a separate sign (30.07?) that would apply to only prohibit open carry, or just allow the old gun busters sign to work for now. Having a separate sign for open carry would be an additional annoyance for anti-gun business owners to post up two signs, but also would allow for supporters for concealed carry only to still allow that method of carry without having to ban all forms of carry with a single sign.
When I asked for why they added "or unconcealed" all throughout the penal code instead of just striking 46.035a they said that had come from NRA as well after their experience during the last legislative session, but just needed to get *something* filed early in the process even though they intended to amend it as they went along.
As for the holster requirements, that was done to get support from law enforcement organizations, though none have publicly stated support for this bill as of now.
Please give them a call (512-463-0692) and your local representative too.
They say that the NRA asked them to make those changes to get the bill passed but they're aware of the problems and will be amending it. I asked for them to either create a separate sign (30.07?) that would apply to only prohibit open carry, or just allow the old gun busters sign to work for now. Having a separate sign for open carry would be an additional annoyance for anti-gun business owners to post up two signs, but also would allow for supporters for concealed carry only to still allow that method of carry without having to ban all forms of carry with a single sign.
When I asked for why they added "or unconcealed" all throughout the penal code instead of just striking 46.035a they said that had come from NRA as well after their experience during the last legislative session, but just needed to get *something* filed early in the process even though they intended to amend it as they went along.
As for the holster requirements, that was done to get support from law enforcement organizations, though none have publicly stated support for this bill as of now.
Please give them a call (512-463-0692) and your local representative too.
Last edited:
But HB 383 has been filed, if it passes, out of state CHL will not be legal if that person has established residency in Texas.
zekester
Regular Member
THAT IS BS!!!......
So You are saying that if 383 passes....the only person that could OC is a Texas Res with a Res chl?
(b-1)AANotwithstanding Subsection (b), a person ’s license to
carry a concealed handgun issued by another state may not be
recognized and is not valid in this state if the person has
established a domicile in this state. For purposes of this
subsection, "domicile" has the meaning assigned by Section 522.003,
Transportation Code.
SECTIONA2.AAThis Act takes effect September 1, 2013.
1
HB 383 has been filed if it passes, the way I read it, is out of state licenses will not be recognized if the person establishes residency in Texas. This is the wording in the first paragraph;
(b-1)AANotwithstanding Subsection (b), a person ’s license to
carry a concealed handgun issued by another state may not be
recognized and is not valid in this state if the person has
established a domicile in this state. For purposes of this
subsection, "domicile" has the meaning assigned by Section 522.003,
Transportation Code.
KBCraig
Regular Member
The best, easiest thing would be to simply make 30.06 apply to all licensed carry, without changing the wording at all. Some might argue that it says "concealed", but they cannot argue tht they didn't see it.
That's why we have 30.06 inn the first place: are you willing to risk up to a year in jail for missing a small, obscure "gun busters" sign?
zekester
Regular Member
hb 383
Filed by a Dem, no co-sign....it will never see the light of day....I hope!!!
Filed by a Dem, no co-sign....it will never see the light of day....I hope!!!
honkytonkrolltide
Regular Member
Makes me wonder if HB 383 would affect active military permanently stationed in Texas? As it stands now, federal law allows us to have "dual" residency, home of record and wherever we are stationed. I'm a TN and TX resident.
Doesn't really address that in the text. I would think active military would not be included in this.
I doubt it will pass either, I think it will get overshadowed by all the other gun laws and it is a useless bill. A lot of people would be out who have out of state CHL's. I opted to spend the time and money to get the TX CHL, I had heard this might come up, that way I don't have to worry about it.
honkytonkrolltide
Regular Member
My thoughts exactly! I've also started to get my stuff together to get a TX CHL as well, just in case. I researched the author of 383 and all of his previous legislation had nothing to do with handguns/weapons/2A. Nothing like the "good idea fairy"....
77zach
Regular Member
Most likely the LEO unions are lying. They will testify angrily against your bill should it go anywhere. Law enforcement lobbies are always against your rights. Count on it.
tico
Founder's Club Member
No argument here-- I was just passing along the explanation I received from Rep. Lavender's office.
tico
Founder's Club Member
I understand the purpose of the 30.06 sign requirements. My understanding is that the even most of the pro-gun congress-critters will not support any bill that touches 30.06 at all, since that was a hard-fought battle to get it in the first place. We can discuss what is or isn't logical/reasonable/simple all day long, but that rarely has anything to do with the legislative process.
Anyhow, for now I guess I'll keep checking back until an amendment / committee substitute shows up.
richardcranium419
New member
Rep Lavender comments - The police community asked for the language. It is for a level 2 holster.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
Of course there may be problems, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath.
Below is the text of my email to my representative and senator (modified as appropriate for each):
--
Please lend your support to HB 700, and when it arrives in the Senate, please vote FOR the measure. It represents a step in the right direction. Currently, everyday when I get dressed, I have to decide how to conceal my pistol, but keep it available, should the need arise. I would prefer to do as is allowed in 33 states, that is, to carry in plain view. This would also eliminate the problem of accidental exposure, which can lead to charges which have nothing to do with public safety.
The predictions from 1996, of a "new wild west" once concealed carry was passed have not come to pass. I'm sure you know the statistics, so you are aware that carriers are among the most law abiding.
--
Below is the text of my email to my representative and senator (modified as appropriate for each):
--
Please lend your support to HB 700, and when it arrives in the Senate, please vote FOR the measure. It represents a step in the right direction. Currently, everyday when I get dressed, I have to decide how to conceal my pistol, but keep it available, should the need arise. I would prefer to do as is allowed in 33 states, that is, to carry in plain view. This would also eliminate the problem of accidental exposure, which can lead to charges which have nothing to do with public safety.
The predictions from 1996, of a "new wild west" once concealed carry was passed have not come to pass. I'm sure you know the statistics, so you are aware that carriers are among the most law abiding.
--