TexasCHLforum.com

Maxwell wrote:

mr1337 wrote:
Don't forget running the serial of the gun and emptying the chamber and magazine, dumping the rounds on the sidewalk before giving it back to you, for "officer safety."

Don't you think that's a little bit of a conspiracy theorist point of view? I mean really, how many people do you know, or anyone for that matter, that have ever had an officer "dumping rounds on the sidewalk..."...?

thechl wrote:In my little town there are unlawful 30.06 signs on virtually all the municipal buildings. When I told a police officer about preemption of state law he assured me the signs were allowed 'to afford public safety.' So my suspicion is 30.07 signs will soon join the force. Unless, of course, SB 273/HB 226 get passed, including an amendment to cover 30.07. Indeed, I suspect those bills are being held in anticipation of the need for the 30.07 amendment.

Open Carry will be interesting for a while, throughout Texas, in cities big and small.

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

CJD wrote:

RPBrown wrote:I just looked at the entire HB 910 and the effective date on it states Sept. 1st, 2015. Think that will get through the Senate?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go here and look at House Committee Report Bill, very last line, shows Jan 1.

RPBrown wrote:I just looked at the entire HB 910 and the effective date on it states Sept. 1st, 2015. Think that will get through the Senate?

TVGuy wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:So what is this 3rd amendment we're voting on now?

LEO can't stop you just for OC

Amend H.B. No. 910 on third reading by adding the following
2 appropriately numbered SECTION to the bill and renumbering
3 subsequent SECTIONS of the bill accordingly:
4 SECTION Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
5 is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
6 Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
7 PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop
8 or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
9 possesses a handgun license solely because the person is
10 carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a
11 shoulder or belt holster.

CJD wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:The perfected amendment passed.

Clarified the unclear language on last week's passed amendment to make sure it was oral notification after entry that elevated it up to a Class A

Great. That is exactly what I wanted to hear, way too unclear the way it was written on friday. Anyone got the amended amendment's text?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go here and look at H3 1.

FLOOR AMENDMENT NO. __ _ BY:
Amend H.B. No. 910 on third reading as follows:
( 1) In SECTION 42 of the bill, amending Sect ion 30. 06, Penal
3 Code, strike amended Subsection (d) and substitute the following:
4 (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
5 punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is
6 a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense
7 that, after entering the property, the license holder was
8 personally given the notice by oral communication described by
9 Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.
10 (2) In SECTION 44 of the bill, adding Section 30.07, Penal
11 Code, strike added Subsections (a) and (d) and substitute the
12 following:
13 (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
14 holder:
15 (1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of
16 Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another
17 without effective consent; and
18 (2) received notice that entry on the property by a
19 license holder openly carrying a handgun was forbidden.
20 (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
21 punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is
22 a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense
23 that, after entering the property, the license holder was
24 personally given the notice by oral communication described by
25 Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

Vol Texan wrote:The perfected amendment passed.

Clarified the unclear language on last week's passed amendment to make sure it was oral notification after entry that elevated it up to a Class A

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TBJK wrote:Am I the only one bothered by admendment 12? Not that I intend on carrying extra mags but would like the option too without it being criminalized.

That amendment was tabled; it's not in HB910. Only one amendment was attached and it was a very good one, i.e. Shaefer's 18.

Chas.

Hey Charles, in layman's terms, what exactly does Shaefer's 18th amendment to 910 do exactly?

I'm not Charles, but with the weather around Houston he may be preoccupied at the moment but a link to the text of the amendment is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially this amendment reduces the penalty for a 30.06 violation to a Class C and a fine of $200, unless it can be proven that the Licensee was given notice after entering the property and failed to depart after receiving notice.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TBJK wrote:Am I the only one bothered by admendment 12? Not that I intend on carrying extra mags but would like the option too without it being criminalized.

That amendment was tabled; it's not in HB910. Only one amendment was attached and it was a very good one, i.e. Shaefer's 18.

Chas.

tomtexan wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So for everyone stating that walking past a 30.06/30.07 after the amendment to 910 goes into effect is a class A, even if you didn't see it, then what was the intent of the amendment in the first place?

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C [A] misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

viking1000 wrote:Amendment number 9 to HB 910 that was approved says any city over 750000 population can regulate open carry ...
That covers Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio .. The way I read it .. Anyone see it different..?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

Charles, what I'm still not clear on is whether HB910 created a 30.07 sign for openly carried handguns, or does 30.06 now apply to both OC and CC?

Nevermind.... I just went and read the text of the bill. It does create 30.07 for OC. But the. That begs the question: does the change in penalties apply only to 30.06, or to both 30.06 and 30.07?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Interesting thought. HB910 states that each entrance must be posted with 30.07 in order to bar open carry. The 30.06 code does not say "each entrance". Therefore, if 30.07 is not posted at every entrance to an establishment, could you technically walk past a valid 30.07 sign and not be in violation of the law?

Another question. The amendment says "after entering the property". So if the business just posts the signs past the door, let's say on the indoor wall, you have been given effective notice after "entering" the property, and it is therefor a class A?
I really wish they had said verbally and that would have made it very clear. Walk past sign = class C. Given verbal notice and stick around = class A.

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.