TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

Bladed wrote:How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

There have been previous discussions in these forums that it should be a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly carry past a no guns sign on private property. If you are subsequently asked to leave and refuse, then that should be a Class B like an ordinary unarmed trespass.

The Class A misdemeanor for Armed Trespass should apply to an unlicensed person carrying illegally, IMO.

Then what you're actually talking about is lowering the severity of trespass by a holder of a license to carry a concealed handgun, not reclassifying trespass by a license holder as criminal trespass. I have a hard time believing that lowering the severity of trespass by a license holder to a Class C misdemeanor would pass without the offense being either reclassified as disorderly conduct or in some other way added to the list of offenses that trigger automatic revocation of the offender's CHL.

The Class A misdemeanor for armed trespass--PC Sec. 30.05(d)(3)(B)--is not the same as the Class A misdemeanor for trespass by a license holder--PC Sec. 30.06. For all intents and purposes, with regard to carrying a gun past a no-guns sign, Penal Code Section 30.06 applies only to a license holder carrying a concealed handgun, and 30.05(d)(3)(B) does not apply to a license holder carrying a concealed handgun.

I wish that no type of no-guns/no-carry sign had force of law in Texas, but given that Texans value property rights even more than gun rights, that's not likely to happen. All things considered, the 30.06 law is a pretty good system (a good system that certain open-carry groups and certain gun-control groups seem to be working together to destroy).

steveincowtown wrote:

C-dub wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Signs have no force of law in Kansas, so I would love to see TX catch up. Hopefully this is considered in new bills for the upcoming TX session.

Maybe I'm not sure what you mean when you say they do not have the force of law. I frequently travel to Kansas and thought they did when they meet specific requirements.
http://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/do ... f?sfvrsn=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe your link only relates to "state and municipal" buildings.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kansas.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 6...

If TX would take the teeth out of 30.06 and make it a simple trespass charge we could end the conflicts about the signs issue. Signs not having the force of law is true in many states. It makes things much easier for everyone.

How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

jimlongley wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

txpilot wrote:Perhaps when OC is legal, Texas might follow the Kansas example where they have signs to cover all combinations: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/conceale ... ed-signage

Absolutely not!! At a minimum of 6" diameter, those generic signs are larger than the typical 2"X2" "no gun" decals we saw in Texas, but not nearly as large as a compliant 30.06 sign.

Chas.

I'm thinking those signs, but traffic size, with language that says anything smaller is not just a defense to prosecution, but just flat unenforceable.

Does open carry really need a statutory sign? Right now, you can theoretically prohibit it (per PC Sec. 30.05) with any sign. Maybe we should just leave the signage rules as they are.

KD5NRH wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Yup, but here is what I don't get. Constitutional Carry is part of the Texas Republican platform:

http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uplo ... -Final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Page 40)

and somehow we can't get anyone to even present a bill for any type of OC?????

It would have to get on to the calendar. That's not going to happen unless we can get one up first requiring the death penalty for legislators who introduce "fluff bills" recognizing people's birthdays and such that run the clock out on actual legislation.

I've done more than my share of complaining about how much time the legislature wastes, and I agree that it's frustrating as hell to be waiting for a floor vote on an important bill and have to sit through ninety minutes of the chamber recognizing wedding anniversaries and little league victories, but it's worth noting that those "fluff" bills are placed on a different calendar than most serious legislation and are typically heard at times when the legislators either don't have much else to work on (i.e., early in the session) or need the delay to work on other things (while one legislator is droning on and on about the local spelling bee champion, his colleagues are actually using that time to get stuff done).

EDITED TO ADD: One of the arguments for switching to annual legislative sessions is that there would be less of a buildup of these types of procedural/formality issues, leaving more time for legislators to address serious legislation. I'm not sure how much validity there is to that claim, but it seems like a relevant footnote to your comment. Also, it should be noted that I've been told legislators use the time during the Local and Consent Calendar to get work done, but having never been a member of or staffer for the Texas Legislature, I'm just reporting secondhand information--for all I know, they're playing solitaire.