• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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 moving in the House with 69 authors and co-authors

MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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."
 
stealthyeliminator

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
MAC702 said:
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."
Click to expand...

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...
 
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
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.
 
G

Glock 1st fan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
310
Location
United States
MAC702 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
It hasn't passed the legislature yet, but it is seeming to have good traction and support on its way through.
 
G

Glockster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Houston
stealthyeliminator said:
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...
Click to expand...

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! :monkey
 
qednick

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
499
Location
Bandera, TX
drdan01 said:
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! :monkey
Click to expand...

It will also be important for us all to let them know why we don't shop there anymore!!
 
S

SteveInCO

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
297
Location
El Paso County, Colorado
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.
 
MAC702

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
SteveInCO said:
...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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
S

SteveInCO

Regular Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
297
Location
El Paso County, Colorado
MAC702 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top