matt dillon
Regular Member
I sure do wish we would have try for constitutional carry after hearing about wyoming if this bill make it to perry desk would he be allow to change it to constitutional carry if he so desire
-
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 introduced in Texas
- Thread starter pooley
- Start date
I sure do wish we would have try for constitutional carry after hearing about wyoming if this bill make it to perry desk would he be allow to change it to constitutional carry if he so desire
The governor's only power is to veto a bill. He can't even do that if the bill received a 2/3 vote in both chambers.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
When you step back a bit and survey the totality of law affecting the right to carry a handgun, the trend is towards recognition of constitutional carry. Yes, Texas has a "law" on the books known as Chapter 46 - Weapons under the TPC which includes among other brain-straining provisions - section 46.02 (a) specifically criminalizing the carry on or about the person of a handgun. This provision is clearly -as written - UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Assuming HB 2756 is enacted into law in 2011, WHO will not be able to carry a handgun openly, or concealed -subject only to private premises rights ? Texas residents, ineligible for, uninterested in, or unable to obtain a Texas CHL for statutory, financial, or personal reasons. Since roughly only 2 percent of Texans currently have obtained CHL's, there apparently isn't a great deal of interest in being armed among the general population of eligible citizenry. That's their prerogative, and RIGHT if they wish to remain unarmed.
Of the not otherwise prohibited, or uninterested citizens who feel passionately, or strongly committed to assuming the responsibility of carrying a handgun to ensure the safety of themselves, and their family members - only a very few cannot- or will not. Most of the "incumbered" citizens COULD rearrange their financial priorities to reflect the value of their lives, OR pay that child-support that they owe to their children, pay their property taxes, and they can refrain from battering their spouses. I like grass in my lawn - some folks prefer rocks - whatever.
I can accept a licensing requirement for the time being, if 99.999 % of those citizens who respect, appreciate , and value their RIGHT and need to arm themselves for safety in public - CAN DO SO. Considering this stage of the process as a "clinical trial", just as the CHL program passed 15 years back has served to "test" the efficacy of the right to carry AT ALL in Texas -progress is being made towards restoring respect for this RIGHT.
I personally do not want to see a bunch of folks charging out into the public square attempting to force open carry into the private premises realm. That kind of activism is counter-productive- like seeing how low you can wear your britches before somebody can't stand it and reacts. Such activism will not facilitate the prospects for constitutional carry down the road. "Know when to hold - know when to fold." That's good poker strategy , as well as good political strategy.
When this billpasses, I will OC when and where I think it is appropriate, and in a holster style that I feel is low-profile - or not -depending upon the circumstances. I have a fair selection of holsters, revolvers, pistols for almost every occassion. I prefer close-hugging holsters like my Safari Land retention paddle holster, Don Hume thumb-break , or Desantis IWB holsters because I can't stand "bumping" into door ways, door knobs, snagging display racks, or other people. That "appropriateness" may vary from one day to the next.
I have lived on the cutting-edge of change most of my life. I have carried when the "law" supposedly said I couldn't. I have openly carried inspite of the "consensus" that it is illegal in Texas - which it isn't, other than the 46.035(a) provision which ofcourse applies to the CHL licensee. HB 2756, just like the CHL law will clear up most of the existing confusion.
Assuming HB 2756 is enacted into law in 2011, WHO will not be able to carry a handgun openly, or concealed -subject only to private premises rights ? Texas residents, ineligible for, uninterested in, or unable to obtain a Texas CHL for statutory, financial, or personal reasons. Since roughly only 2 percent of Texans currently have obtained CHL's, there apparently isn't a great deal of interest in being armed among the general population of eligible citizenry. That's their prerogative, and RIGHT if they wish to remain unarmed.
Of the not otherwise prohibited, or uninterested citizens who feel passionately, or strongly committed to assuming the responsibility of carrying a handgun to ensure the safety of themselves, and their family members - only a very few cannot- or will not. Most of the "incumbered" citizens COULD rearrange their financial priorities to reflect the value of their lives, OR pay that child-support that they owe to their children, pay their property taxes, and they can refrain from battering their spouses. I like grass in my lawn - some folks prefer rocks - whatever.
I can accept a licensing requirement for the time being, if 99.999 % of those citizens who respect, appreciate , and value their RIGHT and need to arm themselves for safety in public - CAN DO SO. Considering this stage of the process as a "clinical trial", just as the CHL program passed 15 years back has served to "test" the efficacy of the right to carry AT ALL in Texas -progress is being made towards restoring respect for this RIGHT.
I personally do not want to see a bunch of folks charging out into the public square attempting to force open carry into the private premises realm. That kind of activism is counter-productive- like seeing how low you can wear your britches before somebody can't stand it and reacts. Such activism will not facilitate the prospects for constitutional carry down the road. "Know when to hold - know when to fold." That's good poker strategy , as well as good political strategy.
When this billpasses, I will OC when and where I think it is appropriate, and in a holster style that I feel is low-profile - or not -depending upon the circumstances. I have a fair selection of holsters, revolvers, pistols for almost every occassion. I prefer close-hugging holsters like my Safari Land retention paddle holster, Don Hume thumb-break , or Desantis IWB holsters because I can't stand "bumping" into door ways, door knobs, snagging display racks, or other people. That "appropriateness" may vary from one day to the next.
I have lived on the cutting-edge of change most of my life. I have carried when the "law" supposedly said I couldn't. I have openly carried inspite of the "consensus" that it is illegal in Texas - which it isn't, other than the 46.035(a) provision which ofcourse applies to the CHL licensee. HB 2756, just like the CHL law will clear up most of the existing confusion.
Last edited:
ScottDLS
Regular Member
This Is Very Bad Advice
TXPC 46.035(a) quoted below applies to carrying under "authority" of GC Subchapter H, Chapter 411. This includes HOLDERS OF A RECOGNIZED OUT OF STATE HANDGUN PERMIT. That's because that chapter is what grants reciprocity/recognition to other state's permits. So if you're using other state's permit as your authority to carry and openly carry, you are subject to prosecution for intentional failure to conceal.
If you openly carry while fishing, you'd better be "handgun fishing" because in order to have the non-applicability of the law prohibiting ANY carry of a handgun (TXPC 46.02), you better be...
"engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity
on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en
route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor
vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity"
Arguments about applicability of SCOTUS Heller and McDonald are specious, because they have not yet been held to grant
"fundamental substantive right (CIVIL RIGHT) to carry a handgun for personal protection in case of confrontation, SUBJECT ONLY TO REGULATION PERTAINING TO CONCEALMENT."
Where did you get this? Not from the decisions, 'cause that's not in there.
-----------------
PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
TXPC 46.035(a) quoted below applies to carrying under "authority" of GC Subchapter H, Chapter 411. This includes HOLDERS OF A RECOGNIZED OUT OF STATE HANDGUN PERMIT. That's because that chapter is what grants reciprocity/recognition to other state's permits. So if you're using other state's permit as your authority to carry and openly carry, you are subject to prosecution for intentional failure to conceal.
If you openly carry while fishing, you'd better be "handgun fishing" because in order to have the non-applicability of the law prohibiting ANY carry of a handgun (TXPC 46.02), you better be...
"engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity
on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en
route between the premises and the actor's residence or motor
vehicle, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity"
Arguments about applicability of SCOTUS Heller and McDonald are specious, because they have not yet been held to grant
"fundamental substantive right (CIVIL RIGHT) to carry a handgun for personal protection in case of confrontation, SUBJECT ONLY TO REGULATION PERTAINING TO CONCEALMENT."
Where did you get this? Not from the decisions, 'cause that's not in there.
-----------------
PC §46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
Granted that this is a slight technicality, but the operative phrase is LICENSED under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411.
The holder of a permit or license issued under the authority of a jurisdiction other than the State of Texas may not have that authority suspended, or revoked by the State of Texas. They are likewise not restricted as to category of handgun they are licensed to carry unless the out of state licensing/permitting authority imposes such a requirement.
The VALIDY of that jurisdiction's licenses or permits may be affected by Texas rescending RECOGNITION, if disciplinary action is not taken by the licensing /permitting authorityagainst the holder for violating the intent of 46.035 (a), and the spirit of the reciprocity agreement, but the penalty provision of 46.035 (a) is still only applicable to persons LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
Hopefully, this will soon be a non-issue. I don't offer this opinion in order to irritate CHL holders, but to argue one GOOD reason WHY 46.035 (a) needs to be repealed, and hopefully it soon will be.
As for as your take on the Heller/McDonald decisions - Texas handgun law does not prohibit possession of handguns outside of the home, or even in the home as did both D.C., and Chicago ordinances. Therefore the affirmed right citied in support of the Heller/McDoanld decisions to carry in case of confrontation applies to outside of the home as well in Texas and does not require further SCOTUS affirmation.
That's MY OPINION. Your welcome to have the last word on both issues. I'm blue in the face from debating the hypothetical ramnifications of Heller/McDonald, and the 46.035 (a) issue.
The holder of a permit or license issued under the authority of a jurisdiction other than the State of Texas may not have that authority suspended, or revoked by the State of Texas. They are likewise not restricted as to category of handgun they are licensed to carry unless the out of state licensing/permitting authority imposes such a requirement.
The VALIDY of that jurisdiction's licenses or permits may be affected by Texas rescending RECOGNITION, if disciplinary action is not taken by the licensing /permitting authorityagainst the holder for violating the intent of 46.035 (a), and the spirit of the reciprocity agreement, but the penalty provision of 46.035 (a) is still only applicable to persons LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
Hopefully, this will soon be a non-issue. I don't offer this opinion in order to irritate CHL holders, but to argue one GOOD reason WHY 46.035 (a) needs to be repealed, and hopefully it soon will be.
As for as your take on the Heller/McDonald decisions - Texas handgun law does not prohibit possession of handguns outside of the home, or even in the home as did both D.C., and Chicago ordinances. Therefore the affirmed right citied in support of the Heller/McDoanld decisions to carry in case of confrontation applies to outside of the home as well in Texas and does not require further SCOTUS affirmation.
That's MY OPINION. Your welcome to have the last word on both issues. I'm blue in the face from debating the hypothetical ramnifications of Heller/McDonald, and the 46.035 (a) issue.
Last edited:
billv
Regular Member
So how is this going to work if I have both a TX CHL and one (or more) from out of state? I have both a TX and AZ CHL.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Lots of info about that on the Lone Star Forum. It's their bill.
It means TX can yank your TX CHL if they want, but only AZ can revoke or suspend your AZ license.
EDIT: To be honest AZ probably won't care what trouble you get into here in TX as long as you stay off page 1 of the Houston Chronicle
Last edited:
ScottDLS
Regular Member
ScottDLS
Regular Member
Not Sure I Agree
46.035(a) doesn't say "LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE"
It says: "A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun....under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411...and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
Presumably the license "held" could be from a reciprocal state. Also, "licensed under subchapter H, chapter 411 is the only thing that gives you the "defense" to 46.02 for carrying a handgun at all, unless you meet one of the other defenses or exceptions:
I'd sure like to see 46.035(a) go away too, but I believe it currently applies to people carrying under a reciprocal or recognized license.
46.035(a) doesn't say "LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE"
It says: "A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun....under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411...and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
Presumably the license "held" could be from a reciprocal state. Also, "licensed under subchapter H, chapter 411 is the only thing that gives you the "defense" to 46.02 for carrying a handgun at all, unless you meet one of the other defenses or exceptions:
I'd sure like to see 46.035(a) go away too, but I believe it currently applies to people carrying under a reciprocal or recognized license.
You have to read a little further. There are several exceptions in PC 46.02, 46.03, & 46.15.
I'm not trying to get in a legal debate, but no one statute can stand alone. There are always exceptions & other related statutes to be considered.
CrossFire
Regular Member
Happy days. It's on the move. Time to start with the emails and phone calls.
rushcreek2
Regular Member
Now is the time to get on the phone and share our interest in HB 2756 with the members of the Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee. We've spent the last two years tossing this open carry thing around on this & that forum - ad nauseum.
Hair-splitting this way - or that way - ain't gonna get it done folks.
Now let's get focused on helping HB 2756 get passed out of the Legislature and onto the Governor's desk !
Hair-splitting this way - or that way - ain't gonna get it done folks.
Now let's get focused on helping HB 2756 get passed out of the Legislature and onto the Governor's desk !
jordanmills
Regular Member
Yep. Let's hurry up and complete this step so we can move on to the next one.
77zach
Regular Member
Will people be able to openly carry on school property if the OC bill and the campus carry bill pass?
Our OC bill in Florida almost died because, among other reasons, it allowed CC and OC at schools. The anti-gun media and "law enforcement" always the enemies of freedom, had a seizure. Thankfully, before the problem committee could kill the whole bill, the campus carry language was taken out and it looks like licensed OC has a good chance of becoming law now.
Our OC bill in Florida almost died because, among other reasons, it allowed CC and OC at schools. The anti-gun media and "law enforcement" always the enemies of freedom, had a seizure. Thankfully, before the problem committee could kill the whole bill, the campus carry language was taken out and it looks like licensed OC has a good chance of becoming law now.
Only if the campus bills are amended. As they are now, it only permits carrying a concealed handgun.
EDIT: There is a fair chance of that happening, since they're all in the House committee on homeland security & public safety. A large majority of those committee members have also authored pro-gun legislation this session as well, so I'm expecting favorable reports on most pro-gun house bills.
Last edited:
matt dillon
Regular Member
Companion Bill
To save time, the same bill can be introduced into the House of Representatives and Senate at the same time. Each is issued it's own number. eg... The House bill will be HBxxxx, and the Senate bill will be SByyyy even though they are the same bill. If both bills pass in their respective chamber, they are not sent to the other chamber. They would go directly to the governor as long as they both had either no amendments or had the same amendments.
did Lavender submit HB 2756 to the house of representatives and the senate
To save time, the same bill can be introduced into the House of Representatives and Senate at the same time. Each is issued it's own number. eg... The House bill will be HBxxxx, and the Senate bill will be SByyyy even though they are the same bill. If both bills pass in their respective chamber, they are not sent to the other chamber. They would go directly to the governor as long as they both had either no amendments or had the same amendments.
did Lavender submit HB 2756 to the house of representatives and the senate
matt dillon
Regular Member
storing your firearm in an employer parking lot was this bill pass
Thanks for the quote
Rep's can only submit bills in the house, a senator has to submit a senate companion bill. No senate bill was introduced this session.
March 11th was the official deadline for new bills, but the legislature can vote to suspend that rule to allow a late submission. So far 20 or so new bills have been introduced since the deadline by doing that.
SB 321 was engrossed with a vote of 30 Ayes & 1 Nay.
HB 681 has received a favorable committee report but has not yet been put on the calendar for a house action. It will pass, more than half the house are already listed as authors/coauthors (88 of 150). The only questions are whether it will receive a 2/3 vote like SB 321 and whether it will be engrossed with the same amendments. If they don't agree completely one of two things will happen. Either a conference committee is formed to resolve the differences in the bill or the house can go ahead & handle SB 321 (committee report, 2nd/3rd readings, the whole 9 yards).
Last edited: