• 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.

3d Draft of Texas Open Carry Rights Restoration Bill Now Posted for final comments

C

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike!

In Texas it is LEGAL to carry in churches, synagogues, hospitals, nursing homes, amusement parks, government meetings. If you read the end of UNLAWFUL CARRYING BY A LICENSE HOLDER: it states that those prohibitions for the above mentioned places ONLY apply if there is a sign posted in accordance with 30.06. - that is a specific sign that is used in Texas....
 
C

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

In other words you struck line (i) out of the Unlawful Carrying by a license holder and just created a bunch of extra places off limit. In Texas we regularly carry at government meetings, including in the Capitol building where I testified on behalf of carrying with no license inside your vehicle, while I was armed and several of the members of the Law Enforcement Committee of the House of Reps were armed, too!
 
C

Count

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
453
Location
, ,
imported post

Mike!

Which legislator will carry the bill? Did you speak to anyone yet? I may be able to get co-sponsors to the bill, depending on who you have in mind to carry the bill! I will be down in Austin during the legislative session to help when needed! I can tell you right now that the TSRA WILL NOT HELP ON THIS ISSUE this time around. I had several conversations with Alice Tripp and Jim Dark and they want to save their political capital for more stringent issues, such as legalizing carry on campus. As a first step do you just want to take away the requirement to conceal for permit holders or you just want to dive in head first with the real deal and see what happens?
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Count wrote:
Mike!

Which legislator will carry the bill? Did you speak to anyone yet? I may be able to get co-sponsors to the bill, depending on who you have in mind to carry the bill! I will be down in Austin during the legislative session to help when needed! I can tell you right now that the TSRA WILL NOT HELP ON THIS ISSUE this time around. I had several conversations with Alice Tripp and Jim Dark and they want to save their political capital for more stringent issues, such as legalizing carry on campus. As a first step do you just want to take away the requirement to conceal for permit holders or you just want to dive in head first with the real deal and see what happens?
Click to expand...
Count - Help in Austin would be appreciated - obviously we need to get a core group of legislators ready to sponsor and co-sponsor the bill. I might be able to swing down there in Jan or Feb to check on my house in Texcas and attend some hearings :)

I am about to post an alert message for folks to email their legislators - there have been some low key discussions betoween some of our members and legislators, no names releaseable yet. So far, no legislator has siad "no," and they are quite amazed that Texas is one of only 6 states banning Open Carry and that most states require no license to open carry - it makes them speechless and these points resonate very well.

Our bill as you see above seeks to restore the right to open carry and not tie it to any licensing scheme - others can introduce weaker bills or compromises if they want, but I see no reason to do so - after all, Texas law, incredibly, requires no license to **conceal** in a vehicle one owns or controls - most states regulate both concealing and car carry more than on-foot carry!
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Count wrote:
Mike!

In Texas it is LEGAL to carry in churches, synagogues, hospitals, nursing homes, amusement parks, government meetings. If you read the end of UNLAWFUL CARRYING BY A LICENSE HOLDER: it states that those prohibitions for the above mentioned places ONLY apply if there is a sign posted in accordance with 30.06. - that is a specific sign that is used in Texas....
Click to expand...

Count - I (almost fully) copied the 30.06 triggering requirement, but just forgot to ensure it covered the public meetings carry ban too.

So, I fixed it: "(g) Subsections (b)(4-7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06." See the attached doc and confirm that this corrects what you were concerned about.
 
N

nking

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
149
Location
Vernon, Wilbarger county, Texas, USA
imported post

well update from my local Rep. I had yet to get a reply from my local Rep so i decided to drop by his office on Friday afternoon to ask why. I never got in to see him but spoke with his main man and they are big 2nd amendment advocats but he said both felt that it would not pass and here is the first thing he said. Well we dont want it to be like the OK Corral everyone walking around like GUN Slingers, so i jumped in on that note Quoting statistics from other states crime etc etc. It amazed how he still had researched this but formed an oppinion on the lack of information that he had. I dont know how much of an impact i had by the time that i left the office but hopefully i left him a little more educated to the fact of.
 
D

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

The wording of the bill, as posted, seems to indicated that 30.06 would affect open carry in the same way it affects concealed carry. If that's the case, I would oppose this legislation because I don't want to see the number of places I'm allowed to carry concealed reduced by public fears over open carry. Business owners who never gave much thought to concealed carry may decide that they don't like the idea of visible guns in their establishments and choose to post 30.06 signs, which would also prohibit concealed carry.
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Douva wrote:
The wording of the bill, as posted, seems to indicated that 30.06 would affect open carry in the same way it affects concealed carry. If that's the case, I would oppose this legislation because I don't want to see the number of places I'm allowed to carry concealed reduced by public fears over open carry. Business owners who never gave much thought to concealed carry may decide that they don't like the idea of visible guns in their establishments and choose to post 30.06 signs, which would also prohibit concealed carry.
Click to expand...
The problem with thatis they have property rights as well. Do you want to trample on their rights so you can exercise yours? I say if they post a sign, don't do business with them. I carry a business sized card that says "NO GUNS WITH ME-NO MONEY FROM ME". I leave it with someone or justnext tothe sign.
 
D

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
The wording of the bill, as posted, seems to indicated that 30.06 would affect open carry in the same way it affects concealed carry. If that's the case, I would oppose this legislation because I don't want to see the number of places I'm allowed to carry concealed reduced by public fears over open carry. Business owners who never gave much thought to concealed carry may decide that they don't like the idea of visible guns in their establishments and choose to post 30.06 signs, which would also prohibit concealed carry.
Click to expand...
The problem with thatis they have property rights as well. Do you want to trample on their rights so you can exercise yours? I say if they post a sign, don't do business with them. I carry a business sized card that says "NO GUNS WITH ME-NO MONEY FROM ME". I leave it with someone or justnext tothe sign.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that property owners shouldn't be able to restrict open carry on their property; I'm saying that they shouldn't be required to post 30.06 to restrict open carry on their property. I have no interest in open carrying. I currently carry concealed virtually everywhere I go and encounter less than one 30.06 sign a year. I'm not interested in seeing half the businesses in Texas suddenly become off-limits to concealed carry so that open carry proponents can walk down Main Street proudly displaying their firearms.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
 
D

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Fine, Captain Semantics.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my ABILITY to LEGALLY carry concealed.
 
J

jlangton

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
9
Location
Warren, Texas, USA
imported post

Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Fine, Captain Semantics.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my ABILITY to LEGALLY carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Douva,don't take this wrong,but you sound like an "elitist CHL snob".
I run into them alot when speaking of open carry,and I myself do not want the CHL laws affected by the restoration of OC to the citizens of Texas. IMO,OC should have a holster requirement,and the simple "ghostbuster" signs will keep those the OC out of a business while the same old 30.06 signs will not change a bit.
JL
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

jlangton wrote:
Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Fine, Captain Semantics.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my ABILITY to LEGALLY carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Douva,don't take this wrong,but you sound like an "elitist CHL snob".
I run into them alot when speaking of open carry,and I myself do not want the CHL laws affected by the restoration of OC to the citizens of Texas. IMO,OC should have a holster requirement,and the simple "ghostbuster" signs will keep those the OC out of a business while the same old 30.06 signs will not change a bit.
JL
Click to expand...
That's cool. Ghostbuster signs for OC and 30.06 for CC. Works for me.
 
D

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

rodbender wrote:
jlangton wrote:
Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Fine, Captain Semantics.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my ABILITY to LEGALLY carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Douva,don't take this wrong,but you sound like an "elitist CHL snob".
I run into them alot when speaking of open carry,and I myself do not want the CHL laws affected by the restoration of OC to the citizens of Texas. IMO,OC should have a holster requirement,and the simple "ghostbuster" signs will keep those the OC out of a business while the same old 30.06 signs will not change a bit.
JL
Click to expand...
That's cool. Ghostbuster signs for OC and 30.06 for CC. Works for me.
Click to expand...
That works for me too.

But those of you who want OC need to be a little more diplomatic if you want to gain widespread support. Referring to individuals who raise concerns about OC's impact on CC as "elitist CHL snobs" isn't the way to win friends and influence people.

And if the Ghostbuster sign is going to be enough to prohibit OC, the proposed bill needs to be written to reflect that.
 
J

jlangton

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
9
Location
Warren, Texas, USA
imported post

Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
jlangton wrote:
Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Fine, Captain Semantics.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my ABILITY to LEGALLY carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Douva,don't take this wrong,but you sound like an "elitist CHL snob".
I run into them alot when speaking of open carry,and I myself do not want the CHL laws affected by the restoration of OC to the citizens of Texas. IMO,OC should have a holster requirement,and the simple "ghostbuster" signs will keep those the OC out of a business while the same old 30.06 signs will not change a bit.
JL
Click to expand...
That's cool. Ghostbuster signs for OC and 30.06 for CC. Works for me.
Click to expand...
That works for me too.

But those of you who want OC need to be a little more diplomatic if you want to gain widespread support. Referring to individuals who raise concerns about OC's impact on CC as "elitist CHL snobs" isn't the way to win friends and influence people.

And if the Ghostbuster sign is going to be enough to prohibit OC, the proposed bill needs to be written to reflect that.
Click to expand...
It's just the way some of you guys are coming across in your comments. I am also a CHL holder.....but, I would never attempt to prohibit those that wish to carry openly with what I feel are selfish one-sided arguments to "protect" CC. It is very possible that any OC legislation will immediately impact the number of locations that CC is allowable, but in the long-term when people are more accustomed to seeing those that are OC'ing,they will ease in their stance against gun owners.
I have yet to see the types of arguments used by those that hold CHL's anywhere in the US where OC is legal like the arguments I see against OC by CHL holders here in Texas.
IMO-the 30.06 sign should be removed law and CHL holders should be able to carry ANYWHERE an off-duty LEO can legally carry. The more laws in favor of gun-owners,the less grip the anti-gun liberals have on the public as a whole,and their arguments get proven wrong in time.
JL
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

How's this guys?

(c) It shall be a ClassA misdemeanor for a person to have in his/her possession a firearm on the premises of another person, whether owned or leased or under control of another person, that is clearly marked at all entrances that firearms are not allowed by either a sign that has a silhouette of a gun or the words “NO GUNS” in 3 inch letters with a red circle around it with a slash going from top left to bottom right on a contrasting background. This section shall not apply to persons licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.[/b]
 
J

jlangton

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
9
Location
Warren, Texas, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
How's this guys?

(c) It shall be a ClassA misdemeanor for a person to have in his/her possession a firearm on the premises of another person, whether owned or leased or under control of another person, that is clearly marked at all entrances that firearms are not allowed by either a sign that has a silhouette of a gun or the words “NO GUNS” in 3 inch letters with a red circle around it with a slash going from top left to bottom right on a contrasting background. This section shall not apply to persons licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
Click to expand...
Somethiong like that would probably work. It's all really going to be up to the reps that wish to sponsor such a bill anyway-they're not gonna put their name on it if they think it's too radical or just impossible.
JL
 
D

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

jlangton wrote:
Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
jlangton wrote:
Douva wrote:
rodbender wrote:
Douva wrote:
If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my right to carry concealed.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you don't have a right to carry concealed. It is a licensed priviledge. If you will read D.C. v Heller it plainly states it. We are simply waiting for incorporation of 2A from a case in Kalifornia, hopefully.
Click to expand...
Fine, Captain Semantics.

If you want to push for open carry, that's fine, but please find a way to do it that won't inadvertently infringe on my ABILITY to LEGALLY carry concealed.
Click to expand...
Douva,don't take this wrong,but you sound like an "elitist CHL snob".
I run into them alot when speaking of open carry,and I myself do not want the CHL laws affected by the restoration of OC to the citizens of Texas. IMO,OC should have a holster requirement,and the simple "ghostbuster" signs will keep those the OC out of a business while the same old 30.06 signs will not change a bit.
JL
Click to expand...
That's cool. Ghostbuster signs for OC and 30.06 for CC. Works for me.
Click to expand...
That works for me too.

But those of you who want OC need to be a little more diplomatic if you want to gain widespread support. Referring to individuals who raise concerns about OC's impact on CC as "elitist CHL snobs" isn't the way to win friends and influence people.

And if the Ghostbuster sign is going to be enough to prohibit OC, the proposed bill needs to be written to reflect that.
Click to expand...
It's just the way some of you guys are coming across in your comments. I am also a CHL holder.....but, I would never attempt to prohibit those that wish to carry openly with what I feel are selfish one-sided arguments to "protect" CC. It is very possible that any OC legislation will immediately impact the number of locations that CC is allowable, but in the long-term when people are more accustomed to seeing those that are OC'ing,they will ease in their stance against gun owners. I have yet to see anywhere in the US where OC is legal the types of arguments by those that hold CC licenses like there are here in Texas.
IMO-the 30.06 sign should be removed law and CHL holders should be able to carry ANYWHERE an off-duty LEO can legally carry. The more laws in favor of gun-owners,the less grip the anti-gun liberals have on the public as a whole,and their arguments get proven wrong in time.
JL
Click to expand...
This sentence doesn't make any sense: "I have yet to see anywhere in the US where OC is legal the types of arguments by those that hold CC licenses like there are here in Texas." That incoherent sentence aside, your argument is still pretty lame.

Basically, you believe in gun rights but not property rights. And you think it's selfish to try to protect the gun rights for which we've fought so hard if protecting those rights means requiring OC proponents to compromise. And, ultimately, you don't see any problem with pursuing a course of action likely to result in Texans being able to defend themselves in far fewer locations than they currently are.

Making political decisions based on reason, rather than dogmatically-held ideals, doesn't make me a snob; it makes me a rational human being.
 
D

Douva

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
27
Location
, ,
imported post

rodbender wrote:
How's this guys?

(c) It shall be a ClassA misdemeanor for a person to have in his/her possession a firearm on the premises of another person, whether owned or leased or under control of another person, that is clearly marked at all entrances that firearms are not allowed by either a sign that has a silhouette of a gun or the words “NO GUNS” in 3 inch letters with a red circle around it with a slash going from top left to bottom right on a contrasting background. This section shall not apply to persons licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
Click to expand...
Something along those lines would probably work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top