Ian
Lone Star Veteran
If you need access to the petition let me know, it's up to 70,000 signatures now.
-
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.
-
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 Bill to be filed.
- Thread starter MR Redenck
- Start date
jsimmons
Regular Member
Is this merely the deletion of the fail-to-conceal clause, or is it honest-to-god open carry for CHL holders?
rushcreek2
Regular Member
The details are not yet available but deletion of 46.035 (a) automatically = open carry for CHL's, subject to private property rights/prerogatives.
I suspect that it will be much more comprehensive than simply deleting 46.035 (a) though.
I suspect that it will be much more comprehensive than simply deleting 46.035 (a) though.
KBCraig
Regular Member
That's always been my suggestion.
Texas seems averse to actually deleting portions of the law. They prefer to tack new language onto the end, which is why we have people who still believe hospitals, churches, and amusement parks are off limits -- they just stopped reading too soon!
rushcreek2
Regular Member
It's amazing how not only the lawmakers don't take sufficient time to study the laws already on the books - so as not to creat a "ball of string remnants" when they add to it, the law enforcers more often than not tend to rely upon faulty assumptions as well. That's just as true in Colorado as in Texas. Anyone exerting the effort to actually study the statutes will be totally mind-boggled at the knowledge gaps, eroneous assumptions, and allussions to "common knowledge" and such when they have an opportunity to engage in a conversation at the local PD or SO.
Last edited:
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
more ammo for my lawsuit then.
ZeR0BuG
New member
When are they suppose to file it?
matt dillon
Regular Member
so if this open carry bill is pass only people with chl can open carry can anyone answer this question i am just trying to catch up please explain if i am wrong
We won't know for sure until the bill is submitted, but that appears to be the case.
ScottDLS
Regular Member
Permitted OPen Carry
These are essentially one and the same. Deleting fail-to-conceal clause would allow open carry by a CHL anywhere they can now conceal and carry. There probably should be some clean up of the wording in the Government Code 411 to take the "concealed" out of the language. But it will no longer be a crime to open carry with a CHL if they simply strike TXPC 46.035(a)....or technically will have the same statutory "Defense" that CHL has today for conceal and carry. It's a first step.
These are essentially one and the same. Deleting fail-to-conceal clause would allow open carry by a CHL anywhere they can now conceal and carry. There probably should be some clean up of the wording in the Government Code 411 to take the "concealed" out of the language. But it will no longer be a crime to open carry with a CHL if they simply strike TXPC 46.035(a)....or technically will have the same statutory "Defense" that CHL has today for conceal and carry. It's a first step.
matt dillon
Regular Member
I will except that to hot here in texas to cc
matt dillon
Regular Member
texas legislature need to take a second look at this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
Hey TEXANS-HR 681 and the companion Senate bill 321 is getting ready and on MARCH 7 may definitely be coming out of COMMITTEE, let your SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES know that they should support these bills! They are for NOT allowing your employer to hold it against you for carrying your LEGAL firearm to work and securing the same in your vehicle while you are engaged in work! This is a big step to OPEN CARRY or CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY-don't know when the latter will be introduced, but soon is the timeline-I think!!!
I think that all will be voted upon sooner than SEPT, which is fast for TEXAS! By the way due to the shortfall in the Budget, for the STATE, I don't see the LICENSE requirement being removed-too much money and does allow for employment of the Instructors-but if that rumor becomes fact, I don't care, I can live with that, I want OPEN CARRY for this STATE, it is LONG overdue!
I think that all will be voted upon sooner than SEPT, which is fast for TEXAS! By the way due to the shortfall in the Budget, for the STATE, I don't see the LICENSE requirement being removed-too much money and does allow for employment of the Instructors-but if that rumor becomes fact, I don't care, I can live with that, I want OPEN CARRY for this STATE, it is LONG overdue!
Last edited:
I'm sorry boys but I just can't warm up to the HR 681 Parking Lot bill. It goes against property rights. When you legislate away some little right here and there, you know what happens. Some of your rights are next. I just can't help but feel like taking away these people's rights over their own property is a slippery slope.
It would have been better to make your vehicle an extension of your home so what's inside your vehicle is nobody's business. It's only their business if you take it out of your vehicle on their property and they object. I believe that's the way they do it in Louisiana. Would have been better that way. Then they wouldn't have to try to get a law passed for every little kind of parking lot there is and infringe on more people's property rights.
In Texas, we're big on property rights and not "infringing". Seems that the flavor of the week law came out and it's one that we like. So now we're ready to "infringe" away because it's not our rights that are being infringed upon.
Just my opinion but doesn't that make sense?
I haven't thought about it like that. I think I would still support the bill since it's limited to keeping your firearm inside your vehicle in the parking lot & has no effect on company operations. My POV is my personal environment, when I get out of my truck and walk in the gate I'm 'at work.' I don't like the idea that I'm unable to cary to/from work because of company policy. Yes, the parking lot is their property & they should have a say, but that say prevents me from having the most effective crime deterrent known to man during 90% of my driving time, which includes gas/store stops & so on.
I agree. It's none of their business what's in your car. I just think it could have been written a lot differently without infringin' on anybody.
matt dillon
Regular Member
preach on pooley you alway have the right thing to say
So that's the intent of this bill. It could have been done better, I'll agree to that. But it is limited to the inside of your vehicle in a parking lot, it doesn't include driving around company property. I work in a lot of chemical plants & refineries and believe me, regardless of what the law says you will never get away with carrying a firearm inside one of them!
Do they have a secure place to check in your weapon, like at the guard shack? That would be nice.
jsimmons
Regular Member
It's too bad that even if this is passed, it will have no effect on those of us that work on a military base.