A Reasonable Approach
The bill was not written poorly either. The bill simply took the concealment requirement out of the law and kept PC30.06 applicable to carrying a handgun. PC30.06 was the part that Charles Cotton was complaining about, " NRA BOARD MEMBER ELECT". Cotton didnt want PC30.06 to apply to open carry, instead he want PC30.05 to apply. " A $4,000 fine and 1 year in jail for failing to see notice!" And yes, we would rather not pass the bill if Cotton had his way with the wording! Everyone who had anything to do with HB2756 understood the importance of the PC30.06 sign and PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. None of us wanted to make it necessary for property owner to post two signs simply because they did not want guns on their property. " NOT ALLOWING GUNS IS ALSO A PERSON RIGHT". Cotton prides himself on keeping the Texas CHL sneaky. He has also laid claim to making the CHL sneaky by admitting the need to change the PC30.06 wording every legislative session. " That makes current signs invalid and allows CHL'ers to walk right past the sign with no legal recourse". You'll find that most people who support open carry will not support being sneaky either. If someone doesnt want us there, we leave.
The accusations that HB2756 was written poorly are not valid. Their simply excuses that the Elitist choose to ponder.
Like many here, I was disappointed that TSRA and the NRA chose not to make OC an issue they would address during this session. To the claims of "limited resources and political capital" I have said "at least try". If the OC bill had to yield to others deemed more important by the membership, fine, but at least try. I want to commend Rep. Lavendar and those here for getting a bill filed, heard in committee, and passed out. Those are achievements.
M.R., I have to disagree with you about 30.06 signs.
Firstly, the 30.06 signs haven't changed in several legislative sessions. As far as I know, since 1997 they have changed only once (when the language was moved from the civil books where it originally was to section 30.06 of the Government Code). True, this meant that older signs were no longer valid but I'd argue this was a beneficial side-effect rather than the true purpose of the bill. IMHO it was really an exercise in recodification & "legal cleanup" more than anything else.
Secondly, regarding TSRA/NRA being anti-OC, while Charles and others have promoted the "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" effect of CC and how this has reduced legitimate 30.06 postings, he has stated repeatedly and recently that he isn't anti-OC. If TSRA members want an OC bill, they will work on one but it wasn't going to happen this session due to the other bills. He personally SUPPORTS OC, as does the NRA, and that's demonstrated by the NRA OC bill in FL. Neither he nor TSRA have come out against the bill nor have they supported it or lobbied for it; they have been neutral.
Let me say again that I disagree with their contention that an OC bill was "just too much" given the other bills they were carrying. I want OC and I want it this session. However, TSRA taking a neutral approach to a bill they didn't draft isn't unreasonable and anti-OC.
Thirdly, the concerns about 30.06 are very real. Even though I disagree with those, including Charles, who believe that there will be large numbers of new postings, I understand their fears. Since most CHL holders will never carry openly, anything that even potentially increases the number of postings is a problem that OC supporters MUST overcome. The CHL population will simply not support something that, rightly or wrongly, they believe will increase postings.
If I read your post correctly, you'd rather the bill not pass than 30.06 not cover OC. If that is a correct statement of your view, then I must disagree with you. Consider the benefits that the bill would have even if 30.06 is not amended:
1) Open Carry, as a general proposition, will be legal if you have a CHL. That means while fishing, hunting, on someone else's property who is an OC supporter, etc. Nearly everywhere in the great outdoors, you no longer have to conceal if you don't want to.
2) Unless there is a sign of some variety, you can open carry in businesses. For all the talk about Gun Buster's signs, there are many, many businesses that have none. If you asked to leave, you leave.
3) If you do find yourself at a business with a gun busters but not 30.06-compliant sign, you get to decide whether to conceal and enter or take your business elsewhere.
4) Once OC is law, and the horrible situations fail to materialize, it will be much easier to go back and make positive changes. This exactly what's happened with the CHL law.
TSRA/Charles has been clear on this point: any OC bill that amends 30.06 is unacceptable and they will move from neutrality to opposition. Say what you like, but that means death for the bill/language. The end of the session is rapidly approaching. IMHO, it is get-what-you-can time. If those who oppose OC because of 30.06 concerns will drop their opposition or become supporters of the proposal, this is a victory. If that makes the langugage palatable so that it can be folded into another bill, take the deal. I, as one OC supporter, would LOVE to have the benefits listed above rather than nothing.
SA-TX
