Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Open carry moving in the House with 69 authors and co-authors

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Open carry moving in the House with 69 authors and co-authors

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillL...84R&Bill=HB910

    Well, finally the bill was referred to Homeland Security and public safety!!! 69 authors is awesome and the number keeps increasing!!! This is identical to the Senate bill!

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Since you started a new thread, which bill is this? I see it requires the license. Any other interesting particulars without us having to read the whole bill? The heading says something about it also "creating a criminal offense."
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Since you started a new thread, which bill is this? I see it requires the license. Any other interesting particulars without us having to read the whole bill? The heading says something about it also "creating a criminal offense."
    I think it's basically, if not exactly the same as the Senate bill that's trucking along. I have a number of problems with these bills, other than the obvious one that they leave the handgun prohibition intact, requiring a license to carry. For instance, it limits legal carry to use of specific types of holsters, but only if carrying unconcealed.

    I think that the "created penalty" is the 30.07. Right now, as you may know, specific signage is required to prohibit CHL holders from carrying a concealed handgun. This bill would require similar but separate signage to prohibit openly carried handguns. The idea is to protect concealed carriers if businesses want to prohibit open carry, but not necessarily concealed carry. They think that anti-gun businesses will prohibit open carry but not concealed carry. This is of course really stupid... What this really does is allows pro-gun but anti-liberty folks to prohibit the method of carry they wish was illegal while not simultaneously prohibiting their privileged friends from concealed carrying. That isn't to say I believe private property can't make whatever rules they wish. But, I am digressing...
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    That was quite informative actually, thanks. I wonder what things will be like on my next trip. I OC daily throughout metro Las Vegas, NV, and I hate having to conceal on my twice-annual trips to Texas. I will definitely be putting businesses to the OC test while there.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  5. #5
    Regular Member Glock 1st fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That was quite informative actually, thanks. I wonder what things will be like on my next trip. I OC daily throughout metro Las Vegas, NV, and I hate having to conceal on my twice-annual trips to Texas. I will definitely be putting businesses to the OC test while there.
    Im not up to par with how legislation works. Especially in Texas so can someone elaborate what has to happen now for the governor to stamp his signature on this? Whats the process?
    Full Supporter of the second Amendment!

    Be careful seeking advice on Forums pertaining to law. Bad advice is often given from people who do not know or understand the law. Always read the law yourself and if you do not understand seek legal advice from a qualified legal expert. Following online advice can land you in legal trouble.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    It hasn't passed the legislature yet, but it is seeming to have good traction and support on its way through.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Pearland, TX
    Posts
    103
    Not the perfect bill, but a huge step in the right direction.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock 1st fan View Post
    Im not up to par with how legislation works. Especially in Texas so can someone elaborate what has to happen now for the governor to stamp his signature on this? Whats the process?
    This page will show you where it is, what stage is next, and other specific details:

    http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...=84R&Bill=SB17
    NRA Life Member

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I think it's basically, if not exactly the same as the Senate bill that's trucking along. I have a number of problems with these bills, other than the obvious one that they leave the handgun prohibition intact, requiring a license to carry. For instance, it limits legal carry to use of specific types of holsters, but only if carrying unconcealed.

    I think that the "created penalty" is the 30.07. Right now, as you may know, specific signage is required to prohibit CHL holders from carrying a concealed handgun. This bill would require similar but separate signage to prohibit openly carried handguns. The idea is to protect concealed carriers if businesses want to prohibit open carry, but not necessarily concealed carry. They think that anti-gun businesses will prohibit open carry but not concealed carry. This is of course really stupid... What this really does is allows pro-gun but anti-liberty folks to prohibit the method of carry they wish was illegal while not simultaneously prohibiting their privileged friends from concealed carrying. That isn't to say I believe private property can't make whatever rules they wish. But, I am digressing...
    I've been pondering the signage issue and that the holster requirement is definitely going to lead to some issues. I have this mental image of a requirement to potentially have four signs to cover two each, for each of 30.06 and 30.07.

    But the way that I figure it is that we just need ONE more new law with penalty sign requirement and we are assured OC nearly anywhere as most businesses won't have the door or window space for six signs and will just give up and leave it all unposted. However, if someone did post six signs, I know that I'd not have the (sign reading) time to shop there!
    NRA Life Member

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by drdan01 View Post
    I've been pondering the signage issue and that the holster requirement is definitely going to lead to some issues. I have this mental image of a requirement to potentially have four signs to cover two each, for each of 30.06 and 30.07.

    But the way that I figure it is that we just need ONE more new law with penalty sign requirement and we are assured OC nearly anywhere as most businesses won't have the door or window space for six signs and will just give up and leave it all unposted. However, if someone did post six signs, I know that I'd not have the (sign reading) time to shop there!
    It will also be important for us all to let them know why we don't shop there anymore!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    I can't quite imagine a hoplophobe banning concealed carry while allowing open carry, though I *can* imagine it the other way around. Their mentality has a good dosage of "what I don't know won't fwighten me" about it. The proposed 30.07 sign allows them to ignore the issue of CC. (They'd probably faint if they ever actually realized how much CC goes on.)

    It will be interesting to see how many places, 30.06 free, decide to post 30.07s. It'll be even more interesting to see how many people take the "concealed is concealed" attitude and spend their money at these places anyway.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    ...It'll be even more interesting to see how many people take the "concealed is concealed" attitude and spend their money at these places anyway.
    And they'll freely tell you, too. It's weird.

    Some places had no alternative, like maybe a specialty shoppe or service, but restaurants and most stores have PLENTY of alternatives, yet it is surprising how many people won't care because they are concealed.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    And they'll freely tell you, too. It's weird.

    Some places had no alternative, like maybe a specialty shoppe or service, but restaurants and most stores have PLENTY of alternatives, yet it is surprising how many people won't care because they are concealed.
    I wonder how many people there violate the 30.06 sign, figuring "concealed is concealed"? In states where such a sign doesn't have force of law, many CCers ignore 'em. (As an aside, Colorado is one state where the signs don't have force of law, so, supposedly, you can walk in there without legal penalty, but must leave when asked to do so. However, a lawyer advised me that if the sign is prominent enough, the courts will consider it sufficient notification and you are already trespassing if you ignore it, and could be arrested. In other words, you don't have to be verbally told to keep out.)

Posting Permissions

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