Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: New Bill for open carry filed today

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Alvin, Texas, USA
    Posts
    43

    New Bill for open carry filed today


  2. #2
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA; escaped from 18 years in TX
    Posts
    740
    Well paint me blue and call me the Blarney Stone!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Converse, Texas
    Posts
    10
    Now that's what I've been saying... makes more sense just to eliminate the verbage all together! TN did it and we just have Handgun Carry Permits. My only worry is now there are two OC bills...which one will stick?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    My very fast read of this bill didn't reveal any surprises. It's cleaner than Lavender's HB-700, without all that "concealed or unconcealed" clutter. It makes the needed changes to PC 30.06, without creating a new and separate sign. We'll see if that stands. Letting the old language apply as well would probably be best, but the TSRA honchos have vowed to shoot down a bill that makes the current 30.06 sign apply to open carry as well.

    Why? They believe there will be a flood of new 30.06 signs in response to open carry, and concealed-only folks will be affected.

    I'm not sure I like the change to PC 46.035(a)(2), since it requires no overt action by the carrier. It says a license holder commits an offense if he "intentionally displays the handgun in a manner that... places another person in fear of iminent bodily injury".

    You have to know some moonbats are going to run with that and try to get carriers charged just because they can see a holstered gun "displayed".
    Last edited by KBCraig; 02-12-2013 at 07:03 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    I am at a total loss to comprehend the strident opposition by some to a bill that simply amends section 30.06 to address "handgun" rather than "concealed handgun".

    This issue has taken on all of the appearances of a contest over political turf - no longer having anything whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

    Rather than exploring all of the possible negative permutations, and computations of removing the statutory concealment requirement for handgun licensees, I would suggest that Texans will be exceptionally sensitive to the prerogatives of property owners because Texas tradition is rooted in respect for private property rights.

    We are apparently being warned that messing with the 30.06 sign's current wording will kill any open carry bill. How is it that merely modifying the Texas CHL into a license to carry a handgun is such a threatening concept to some folks ?

    I have some experience "open carrying" in Colorado, and I have yet to have any issue with private property owners. Due in large part perhaps to my RESPECT for private property rights, I have always approached the decision point of whether or not to cross a particular private property threshhold displaying my holstered weapon with appreciation for the environment, the level of exposure, and the temperment of the clientele.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    This issue has taken on all of the appearances of a contest over political turf - no longer having anything whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
    There is that, for sure. There are individuals who are quite jealous of their status as gatekeepers to the Legislature, and are unwilling to let anyone or anything pass that they didn't have a hand in.



    We are apparently being warned that messing with the 30.06 sign's current wording will kill any open carry bill. How is it that merely modifying the Texas CHL into a license to carry a handgun is such a threatening concept to some folks ?
    The concealed carry crowd don't want the same sign to apply to concealed and open carry. They're certain that at the first sight of an openly carried handgun, new signs will spring up like dandelions, and they don't want those signs to apply to concealed carry.

    This ignores the fact that businesses that post proper 30.06 notices are few, and those that do post generally consult a lawyer to make sure it's legally binding. If open carry makes them suddenly sit up and say, "Hey, we need to ban guns in here!", then they're going to post both signs, not just one.

    They do have some history on their side. When concealed carry first became legal in Texas, there was a rash of new "no guns" signs, most of them simple gunbuster decals. This was the case in most states that enacted new shall issue licenses over the last 30 years. The difference in Texas is that criminal trespass is easy to prove in court if a property owner takes reasonable steps to post a notice. What's worse, criminal trespass while in possession of a deadly weapon jumps up to a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail).

    That's a heckuva price to pay for not seeing a "no guns" sign.

    The concealed carry crowd are perfectly happy to have open carriers face a year in jail for overlooking an obscure notice, just as long as the same notice doesn't apply to them.

    The real solution is going to be an attack on the penalty portion of Chapter 30, the Criminal Trespass laws. I have some ideas on that, but I'm not going to post them in public yet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •