Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83

Thread: Constitutional carry bill pre-filed

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Constitutional carry bill pre-filed

    A constitutional carry bill has been filed by Jonathan Stickland. This bill is a joint effort by OCT and the NAGR

    See attached.

    Edit: replaced with numbered version
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 11-10-2014 at 01:22 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Advocate freedom please

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Yea! Thanks for this post. That's the kind of news I like to hear about! I hope Stickland and supporters can manage the opposition to removing the CHL.

    Life is good.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,170
    shoulda got rid of the 51% language too

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    shoulda got rid of the 51% language too
    It's a step in the Right (get it? Right) direction.

    Kind of off topic, but the wording seems to suggest that one may carry in an amusement park if guards are not there "at all times". Even if I misunderstood, why would amusement parks automatically be prohibited areas instead of being on a case-by-case basis?
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Young Man View Post
    It's a step in the Right (get it? Right) direction.

    Kind of off topic, but the wording seems to suggest that one may carry in an amusement park if guards are not there "at all times". Even if I misunderstood, why would amusement parks automatically be prohibited areas instead of being on a case-by-case basis?
    Probably because certain amusement parks are filthy rich and got them listed as prohibited places when the original CHL laws were passed. You can probably thank the TSRA for that bit of asinine statute. Note that under (g), which was added later, subsection (a)(5) does not apply if effective notice was not given under 30.06, basically making (a)(5) irrelevant, since its listing there has no bearing on a park's ability to give notice under 30.06. It's incredibly convoluted.
    Advocate freedom please

  7. #7
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    But your gun might fall out of its holster while upside down on a ride and a small child might find it murder a couple families with it.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Rusty Young Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Árida Zona
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Probably because certain amusement parks are filthy rich and got them listed as prohibited places when the original CHL laws were passed. You can probably thank the TSRA for that bit of asinine statute. Note that under (g), which was added later, subsection (a)(5) does not apply if effective notice was not given under 30.06, basically making (a)(5) irrelevant, since its listing there has no bearing on a park's ability to give notice under 30.06. It's incredibly convoluted.
    As always, just follow the money. Besides OCT and NAGR, have any other groups (local or otherwise) gotten behind it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Truth View Post
    But your gun might fall out of its holster while upside down on a ride and spontaneously start murdering small children, babies, and puppies, then run off by itself and frame a 25 year old toddler who was really just a victim of society
    Fixed it for ya.
    If you're gonna infiltrate the ranks of the MAD moms, you've still gotta lotta work ta do in the crazy department.
    Last edited by Rusty Young Man; 11-11-2014 at 12:34 AM. Reason: Clarifying that I knows proper grammer, just having a bit of fun.
    I carry to defend my loved ones; Desensitizing and educating are secondary & tertiary reasons. Anything else is unintended.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” - Frederic Bastiat

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Yes, Come and Take It Texas is behind this bill as well.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 11-11-2014 at 08:10 AM. Reason: words are hard
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    a constitutional carry bill has been filed by jonathan stickland. This bill is a joint effort by oct and the nagr

    see attached.

    Edit: Replaced with numbered version
    sweeeeeeeeeet!!!!!

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Texans call your reps. and DEMAND your rights be restored via this Constitutional Carry bill.

    This is great news, now that Perry is on his way out. Traitor!

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Definitely worth watching and supporting this.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    long long overdue. I wish I could move to Texas just to vote for this. The only bugbears I have is the issue with amusement parks which is for them to dictate, not the state and the fact if i'm reading this legalese right, carry in churches would be illegal as would colleges and high schools.

    Churches are private and the decision is up to them. Other than private education facilities who do have the right to ban carry, public ones do not. I was only able to glance quickly at it but those are initial thoughts. Far better than what is considered law now though
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    They should e-cert it, not allow debate, and vote on it at 2:30 am the next day.

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    long long overdue. I wish I could move to Texas just to vote for this. The only bugbears I have is the issue with amusement parks which is for them to dictate, not the state and the fact if i'm reading this legalese right, carry in churches would be illegal as would colleges and high schools.

    Churches are private and the decision is up to them. Other than private education facilities who do have the right to ban carry, public ones do not. I was only able to glance quickly at it but those are initial thoughts. Far better than what is considered law now though
    No, with the original CHL laws, amusement parks and churches were prohibited places I believe. Then they added a section down further that says those sections (listing amusement parks and churches) do not apply if notice isn't given under 30.06, meaning those places now have to give notice under 30.06 just like everyone else.

    So yes, they actually did write a law and then write another law saying that law doesn't apply, leaving us with a big jumbled mess of words with no meaning or purpose... In the official statutes of the State of Texas... *facepalm*

    But the purpose of this bill is not clean-up duty, so that'll have to be fixed later. At least for now it doesn't apply.
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member Preyn2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Burnet, Tx
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    No, with the original CHL laws, amusement parks and churches were prohibited places I believe. Then they added a section down further that says those sections (listing amusement parks and churches) do not apply if notice isn't given under 30.06, meaning those places now have to give notice under 30.06 just like everyone else.

    So yes, they actually did write a law and then write another law saying that law doesn't apply, leaving us with a big jumbled mess of words with no meaning or purpose... In the official statutes of the State of Texas... *facepalm*

    But the purpose of this bill is not clean-up duty, so that'll have to be fixed later. At least for now it doesn't apply.
    Correct. As ungainly as it is, what HB 195 does (and almost all laws, if I'm not mistaken) is modify existing laws. In the case of HB 195, it (relatively) simply removes the requirement to possess a Concealed Handgun License while carrying a gun, either concealed or openly. Because of the relatively simple plan, the bill is only 6-7 pages long. To fully understand it, you should really pull up the existing law (PC 46 Weapons) and see what HB 195 would change.

    For contrast, pull up HB 106, another filed Open Carry bill, and see how tortuous it is. Roughly 40 pages of touching every single place in Texas statutes where the phrase "carry a handgun concealed" is used and adding "or unconcealed". HB 106 would also require "holsters with dual resistance", but it doesn't define "dual resistance". For the record, I believe this bill would be worse for handgun carriers than not getting open carry.

    Carry On.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    long long overdue. I wish I could move to Texas just to vote for this. The only bugbears I have is the issue with amusement parks which is for them to dictate, not the state and the fact if i'm reading this legalese right, carry in churches would be illegal as would colleges and high schools.

    Churches are private and the decision is up to them. Other than private education facilities who do have the right to ban carry, public ones do not. I was only able to glance quickly at it but those are initial thoughts. Far better than what is considered law now though
    I hope you're not currently carrying in Texas if you don't know the laws.

    That is already the law of Texas and has been that way for a long time. Stealthy, I believe it was, is right. The wording is no longer relevant, churches and amusement parks have to post 30.06 signs. Furthermore, they have to be exact word for word.

    It's a nice little "gotcha"if you will. For example the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office in Conroe is posted. But there are words that have faded away, taking all the teeth out of the sign.

    Preyn2: if you look at the bills, you'll notice that various places have strike throughs and others are underlined. The strike through indicates passages the bill removes while anything underlined is being added.
    Last edited by Jack House; 11-12-2014 at 11:51 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post

    So yes, they actually did write a law and then write another law saying that law doesn't apply, leaving us with a big jumbled mess of words with no meaning or purpose... In the official statutes of the State of Texas... *facepalm*
    unbelievable

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I hope you're not currently carrying in Texas if you don't know the laws.

    That is already the law of Texas and has been that way for a long time. Stealthy, I believe it was, is right. The wording is no longer relevant, churches and amusement parks have to post 30.06 signs. Furthermore, they have to be exact word for word.
    Nope. I did say I wished I was living there in order to vote for that law.
    Last edited by rightwinglibertarian; 11-12-2014 at 05:49 PM.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by papabling View Post
    Yea! Thanks for this post. That's the kind of news I like to hear about! I hope Stickland and supporters can manage the opposition to removing the CHL.

    Life is good.
    Doing away with TX CHL is a terrible idea. I don't see where the Stickland bill eliminates CHL, it just makes having a CHL unnecessary.
    Without a license, Texans would not be able to carry in other states that require a license.
    Even in Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire residents can apply for and receive a carry permit.
    Last edited by RoyGBiv; 11-12-2014 at 04:46 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    Doing away with TX CHL is a terrible idea. I don't see where the Stickland bill eliminates CHL, it just makes having a CHL unnecessary.
    Without a license, Texans would not be able to carry in other states that require a license.
    Even in Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire residents can apply for and receive a carry permit.
    Not true. How do you suppose VT residents do it? One can get Nevada and Arizona non-resident permits, which covers some 30 states.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    Doing away with TX CHL is a terrible idea. I don't see where the Stickland bill eliminates CHL, it just makes having a CHL unnecessary.
    Without a license, Texans would not be able to carry in other states that require a license.
    Even in Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire residents can apply for and receive a carry permit.
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    Not true. How do you suppose VT residents do it? One can get Nevada and Arizona non-resident permits, which covers some 30 states.
    It still would be far better to have the option of getting a Texas permit for purposes of reciprocity and recognition.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It still would be far better to have the option of getting a Texas permit for purposes of reciprocity and recognition.
    *shakes head* you know me

    You think i'm going to go for anything that includes an infringement to a right that has been stolen from us decades ago? Nope. This to me would be a great victory and another step in getting all 50 states to allow (my goodness I hate that expression in this context) The bearing of arms without restriction. Now from memory I can't recall if it mentioned schools or just high schools and colleges but the federal laws need nullifying as well. Teachers and anyone else over 18 should be able to carry without question, wherever they please. Thats the Constitution and that is what any American who believes the Constitution should be fighting for
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    It still would be far better to have the option of getting a Texas permit for purposes of reciprocity and recognition.
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    *shakes head* you know me

    You think i'm going to go for anything that includes an infringement to a right that has been stolen from us decades ago? Nope. This to me would be a great victory and another step in getting all 50 states to allow (my goodness I hate that expression in this context) The bearing of arms without restriction. Now from memory I can't recall if it mentioned schools or just high schools and colleges but the federal laws need nullifying as well. Teachers and anyone else over 18 should be able to carry without question, wherever they please. Thats the Constitution and that is what any American who believes the Constitution should be fighting for
    I don't think you will see that happen any faster than if it proceeds in smaller steps. Ask for too much, resistance builds/fault is found, and you walk away with less.....maybe nothing.

    You know me - I look for what works the best
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Nothing I saw in Strickland's bill eliminated the CHL, just the need. Which is what I want. The need to be removed, but the license to remain.

    Something people seem to forget is that the CHL allows you to bypass background checks when buying guns locally. That is a nice little time saver for me. I always get delayed when I go to buy a gun. Always.

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    Nothing I saw in Strickland's bill eliminated the CHL, just the need. Which is what I want. The need to be removed, but the license to remain.

    Something people seem to forget is that the CHL allows you to bypass background checks when buying guns locally. That is a nice little time saver for me. I always get delayed when I go to buy a gun. Always.
    Yes, that is a nice perk.

    IMO another important issue that this bill addresses which, from what I can tell, both of the licensed OC bills fail to address is the requirement to ID on demand. Not only is the requirement to ID on demand unconstitutional and intrusive, it isn't even consistent with Texas ID laws. In fact, it is grossly inconsistent with them, seeing how in Texas you aren't even required to ID when lawfully detained, outside of being a CHL holder while carrying. That section should not have ever been written in the first place. The penalty has been removed, but that section needs to be repealed. This bill does that.
    Advocate freedom please

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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