• 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.

Constitutional carry bill pre-filed

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
A constitutional carry bill has been filed by Jonathan Stickland. This bill is a joint effort by OCT and the NAGR

See attached.

Edit: replaced with numbered version
 

Attachments

  • HB00195I.pdf
    16.7 KB · Views: 161
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
shoulda got rid of the 51% language too

It's a step in the Right (get it? Right:p) direction.

Kind of off topic, but the wording seems to suggest that one may carry in an amusement park if guards are not there "at all times". Even if I misunderstood, why would amusement parks automatically be prohibited areas instead of being on a case-by-case basis?:confused:
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
It's a step in the Right (get it? Right:p) direction.

Kind of off topic, but the wording seems to suggest that one may carry in an amusement park if guards are not there "at all times". Even if I misunderstood, why would amusement parks automatically be prohibited areas instead of being on a case-by-case basis?:confused:

Probably because certain amusement parks are filthy rich and got them listed as prohibited places when the original CHL laws were passed. You can probably thank the TSRA for that bit of asinine statute. Note that under (g), which was added later, subsection (a)(5) does not apply if effective notice was not given under 30.06, basically making (a)(5) irrelevant, since its listing there has no bearing on a park's ability to give notice under 30.06. It's incredibly convoluted.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
But your gun might fall out of its holster while upside down on a ride and a small child might find it murder a couple families with it.
 

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Probably because certain amusement parks are filthy rich and got them listed as prohibited places when the original CHL laws were passed. You can probably thank the TSRA for that bit of asinine statute. Note that under (g), which was added later, subsection (a)(5) does not apply if effective notice was not given under 30.06, basically making (a)(5) irrelevant, since its listing there has no bearing on a park's ability to give notice under 30.06. It's incredibly convoluted.

As always, just follow the money.:( Besides OCT and NAGR, have any other groups (local or otherwise) gotten behind it?

But your gun might fall out of its holster while upside down on a ride and spontaneously start murdering small children, babies, and puppies, then run off by itself and frame a 25 year old toddler who was really just a victim of society

Fixed it for ya.:p
If you're gonna infiltrate the ranks of the MAD moms, you've still gotta lotta work ta do in the crazy department.:lol:
 
Last edited:

Jeff. State

Banned
Joined
Aug 29, 2012
Messages
650
Location
usa
Texans call your reps. and DEMAND your rights be restored via this Constitutional Carry bill.

This is great news, now that Perry is on his way out. Traitor!
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
long long overdue. I wish I could move to Texas just to vote for this. The only bugbears I have is the issue with amusement parks which is for them to dictate, not the state and the fact if i'm reading this legalese right, carry in churches would be illegal as would colleges and high schools.

Churches are private and the decision is up to them. Other than private education facilities who do have the right to ban carry, public ones do not. I was only able to glance quickly at it but those are initial thoughts. Far better than what is considered law now though
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
long long overdue. I wish I could move to Texas just to vote for this. The only bugbears I have is the issue with amusement parks which is for them to dictate, not the state and the fact if i'm reading this legalese right, carry in churches would be illegal as would colleges and high schools.

Churches are private and the decision is up to them. Other than private education facilities who do have the right to ban carry, public ones do not. I was only able to glance quickly at it but those are initial thoughts. Far better than what is considered law now though

No, with the original CHL laws, amusement parks and churches were prohibited places I believe. Then they added a section down further that says those sections (listing amusement parks and churches) do not apply if notice isn't given under 30.06, meaning those places now have to give notice under 30.06 just like everyone else.

So yes, they actually did write a law and then write another law saying that law doesn't apply, leaving us with a big jumbled mess of words with no meaning or purpose... In the official statutes of the State of Texas... *facepalm*

But the purpose of this bill is not clean-up duty, so that'll have to be fixed later. At least for now it doesn't apply.
 

Preyn2

New member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
13
Location
Burnet, Tx
No, with the original CHL laws, amusement parks and churches were prohibited places I believe. Then they added a section down further that says those sections (listing amusement parks and churches) do not apply if notice isn't given under 30.06, meaning those places now have to give notice under 30.06 just like everyone else.

So yes, they actually did write a law and then write another law saying that law doesn't apply, leaving us with a big jumbled mess of words with no meaning or purpose... In the official statutes of the State of Texas... *facepalm*

But the purpose of this bill is not clean-up duty, so that'll have to be fixed later. At least for now it doesn't apply.

Correct. As ungainly as it is, what HB 195 does (and almost all laws, if I'm not mistaken) is modify existing laws. In the case of HB 195, it (relatively) simply removes the requirement to possess a Concealed Handgun License while carrying a gun, either concealed or openly. Because of the relatively simple plan, the bill is only 6-7 pages long. To fully understand it, you should really pull up the existing law (PC 46 Weapons) and see what HB 195 would change.

For contrast, pull up HB 106, another filed Open Carry bill, and see how tortuous it is. Roughly 40 pages of touching every single place in Texas statutes where the phrase "carry a handgun concealed" is used and adding "or unconcealed". HB 106 would also require "holsters with dual resistance", but it doesn't define "dual resistance". For the record, I believe this bill would be worse for handgun carriers than not getting open carry.

Carry On.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
long long overdue. I wish I could move to Texas just to vote for this. The only bugbears I have is the issue with amusement parks which is for them to dictate, not the state and the fact if i'm reading this legalese right, carry in churches would be illegal as would colleges and high schools.

Churches are private and the decision is up to them. Other than private education facilities who do have the right to ban carry, public ones do not. I was only able to glance quickly at it but those are initial thoughts. Far better than what is considered law now though
I hope you're not currently carrying in Texas if you don't know the laws.

That is already the law of Texas and has been that way for a long time. Stealthy, I believe it was, is right. The wording is no longer relevant, churches and amusement parks have to post 30.06 signs. Furthermore, they have to be exact word for word.

It's a nice little "gotcha"if you will. For example the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office in Conroe is posted. But there are words that have faded away, taking all the teeth out of the sign.

Preyn2: if you look at the bills, you'll notice that various places have strike throughs and others are underlined. The strike through indicates passages the bill removes while anything underlined is being added.
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
So yes, they actually did write a law and then write another law saying that law doesn't apply, leaving us with a big jumbled mess of words with no meaning or purpose... In the official statutes of the State of Texas... *facepalm*

unbelievable :banghead:

I hope you're not currently carrying in Texas if you don't know the laws.

That is already the law of Texas and has been that way for a long time. Stealthy, I believe it was, is right. The wording is no longer relevant, churches and amusement parks have to post 30.06 signs. Furthermore, they have to be exact word for word.

Nope. I did say I wished I was living there in order to vote for that law.
 
Last edited:

RoyGBiv

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
24
Location
Tejas
Yea! Thanks for this post. That's the kind of news I like to hear about! I hope Stickland and supporters can manage the opposition to removing the CHL.

Life is good.
Doing away with TX CHL is a terrible idea. I don't see where the Stickland bill eliminates CHL, it just makes having a CHL unnecessary.
Without a license, Texans would not be able to carry in other states that require a license.
Even in Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire residents can apply for and receive a carry permit.
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
Doing away with TX CHL is a terrible idea. I don't see where the Stickland bill eliminates CHL, it just makes having a CHL unnecessary.
Without a license, Texans would not be able to carry in other states that require a license.
Even in Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire residents can apply for and receive a carry permit.

Not true. How do you suppose VT residents do it? One can get Nevada and Arizona non-resident permits, which covers some 30 states.
 
Top