Rep. Lavenders posting on Facebook

For those that don't follow his fb page I thought I would share this.

"I want to thank everyone who has expressed support for Open Carry in our state. The response has been phenomenal ! I also want to say that some folks believe that our bill changes the 30.06 signage requirement. That is not our intent. We worked with the NRA, who has been very supportive, to come up with a bill that would not make a business bar concealed carry because they may have concerns about Open Carry. The new signage applies only to Open Carry. We will have several more attorneys and interested parties review the language next week to make sure that's what we have done. If we missed the mark, it will be fixed. The last thing we want is to diminish our right to concealed carry in an attempt to expand our legal carry rights. Thank you all."

As I and others have pointed out on his FB page, the reason we "believe" it changes 30.06, is because it does. In fact, HB700 completely strikes out 30.06, and replaces it with vague language that can get anyone charged with criminal trespass while in possession of a deadly weapon (a Class A misdemeanor) for walking past a sign that no longer needs to have statutorily mandated language.

You mean because they put in this:
(b)**For purposes of*Subsection (a)*[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*communication*or written communication*that must*consist of:**************(1)**a card or other document on which is written*language indicating that pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code*(trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed or unconcealed*handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,*Government Code, may not enter the property with a concealed*handgun or with any handgun, whether concealed or not, as*applicable; or**************(2)**a sign posted on the property that:********************(A)**includes the language described by*Subdivision (1) of this subsection in both English and Spanish;********************(B)**appears in contrasting colors with block*letters at least one inch in height; and********************(C)**is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly*visible to the public. (b-1)**For purposes of Subsection (a-1), 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*communication or written communication that must consist of:**************(1)**the written communication described by Subsection*(b)(1), except that the communication must indicate that a license*holder may not enter the property with an unconcealed handgun or*with any handgun, whether concealed or not, as applicable; or**************(2)**a sign described by Subsection (b)(2), except that*the sign must include the language described by Subdivision (1) of*this subsection.

And struck out this:

[(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 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.]

Is the upper added paragraph the vague language your talking about?
Granted the punctuation needs work and not being a bill writing advisor for the NRA (as he claims helped) or a lawyer I question some of the wording but I don't see where it needs trashed before the session even starts. Even Lavender himself stated thats its not done getting looked at.

Never let the NRA touch anything related to open carry. They are selling us out and fighting the wrong battles at the national level. That said, the statutory language requirement to prohibit CC is a blessing for carriers. Many non-compliant signs come down and never go back up. We should go with the 30.06 as the only language, obviously modified to cover any carrier. We could have a different wording or sign to exclude OC only. But it'll be way too confusing, since the 30.06 is too confusing for most people.

It's ridiculous that it's an actual crime to carry a lawfully owned/carried firearm past a gunbuster sign. In Oklahoma, it's a trespass violation if you don't leave when asked to leave. It's no different than a "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign. There are no standards for signage.

These signs are largely complied with by licensed carriers because most who carry legally don't want to do business with the dummies who buy into the "gun free zone" fallacy.