TexasCHLforum.com

carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:35 pm

OlBill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:19 pm I wish he'd sign it.

Most folks say he will, but from where I stand I can’t tell.

Why wouldn't he sign it?

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 11:17 am

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 9:59 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Fri May 28, 2021 1:46 am So, again, I'm now confused. IF a business has up 30.06 and 30.07 signs, but does NOT have 30.05 signs posted, are people who do NOT have an LTC allowed to carry past the signs, but those WITH an LTC are NOT allowed to carry past the signs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Especially since there will now be THREE signs, some businesses might just conclude that the current signs keep everyone from carrying in their establishment. And, does it matter if you don't have the actual LTC on you if you carry into an establishment that has 06/07 but not 05 signs? Or, is the fact that you were ISSUED that LTC mean you are always carrying "under the authority of", even if you don't have it on your person? I'm with "safety1", this is making my head hurt.

You are correct, that makes no sense. The same situation has already existed since 1997 when the 30.06 law was passed. There are numerous people who are eligible for and have LTC's who currently are legally able to carry past 30.06/7 signs. Peace Officers, Special Investigators (FBI, DEA, etc.), commissioned security officers while acting in their capacity as guards. A uniformed cop openly carrying is breaking the law passing a 30.07, only because he has LTC? Absurd.

Yes, I get what you are saying, but I will guess that in the case of each of those, they are carrying under a different authority when in the capacity of their job.

I think this is precisely the point. If an LTC holder carries past 30.06 / 30.07 signage, it is OK because he is carrying under a different authority as well. Namely the authority provided by 30.05 to all non-prohibited persons to carry a gun. This is assuming that there are no compliant 30.05 signs posted.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 4:05 pm

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:40 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:22 pm I believe there is also a 46.03 sign required for particular premises (hospitals, amusement parks, etc.) along with 30.06/7 to bare unlicensed and licensed carry.

People can still be charged if they go to a 46.03 location. Per my reading (IANAL, this is not legal advice) there are exceptions that:

• License holders cannot be charged while carrying at government meetings (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(b))

• License holders have to be properly notified with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )

Otherwise if the 46.03 location is properly posted with signs or you knew that it was an off limits location and you are caught carrying there you lose your defense to prosecution. (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(n) )

Yeah that's what I meant. If the 46.03 location posts a 46.03 sign (which is defined) OR you knew you shouldn't be there, then you don't have a defense. Otherwise, if they posted no sign AND you didn't "know" your weren't supposed to be there , you have a Defense. A Defense must be refuted by the prosecution at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck on proving you "knew" something at a particular time, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also with regard to 30.06/7

License holders have to be properly notified (AND BE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THEIR LTC) with 30.06/7/51% signs at hospitals, amusement parks, collegiate sporting events, and 51% locations for a charge to stick (87R HB 1927 Section 25 - Texas Penal Code 46.15(p) and (q) )

In addition to the above, I think it would be hard to argue that a LTC holder "knew" that a premise was off limits, simply based on the fact that they have an LTC. Especially when the statue draws this "knowledge" distinction precisely for LTC holders. If an LTC holder would "obviously" know about all off limits locations, then why would the statute leave open the possibility that an LTC holder might not have this knowledge?

flechero wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:16 pm

Ruark wrote: ↑Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I seem to have misplaced my sympathy.

That's the price they will have to pay for excluding law abiding citizens from carrying... I mean they could have no signage and keep the entrances pretty and not incur any more risk than they already do by only letting the bad guys carry.

Yes it will require some work on the part of a business owner who wants to ban the exercise of 2A rights by as many people as possible. They can choose which subsets of people they don't want exercising this right, on their property, and can even choose to only prohibit a specific method for exercising 2A rights, at least in the case of LTC holders and concealed vs open carry. And they can restrict the RKBA, on their property by all but LEO's and VESP's (I believe).

But personally, I think we should place a high burden on those who wish to restrict the fundamental civil rights of others while they are on a person's property. I do not think that such a restriction should be easy, especially if you operate a business that is open to the general public.

I'd also feel the same way if we were talking about other rights, such as not allowing anyone to enter your property if they have voted in the last 10 years, for example.

oljames3 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:05 pm

TrueFlog wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:00 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 4:04 pm

TrueFlog wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 3:54 pm If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...

I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I hope that you're correct. However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet. Has this concept of when someone is or not carrying "under the authority of their LTC" been discussed on this board before? I'd be curious to see what opinions others have offered and whether there's any broad consensus on this idea.

Yes, the concept of carrying "under the authority of their LTC" has been discussed here before. However, that is just an interesting thought exercise. Until a case hinging on this concept is tried in court and that decision is appealed, we will not know what carrying "under the authority of their LTC" means. It is the appellate court decisions that become case law. After the governor signs the bill, I'll have a talk with my lawyer.

If case law evolves to say that a person is always carrying under the authority of their LTC if they happen to have an LTC, that would put Texas LEO's in an impossible situation, especially if they have young children. Either they don't get an LTC, and risk committing a crime every time they drop their kids off at school (or pick them up), or they get their LTC and commit a crime every time they enter a 30.07 posted business while they are in uniform.

That would be the biggest impact of a court ruling of this nature, especially since I'm assuming that most LE agencies would frown on their officers having illegal weapons offenses on their records.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:43 am

jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 9:26 am

Ruark wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 8:55 am

Papa_Tiger wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:23 am

Gunner4640 wrote: ↑Mon May 24, 2021 6:14 am This may have been asked but I can't find it.
What happens to LTC ? Is it going away?

Whats going to happen at gun purchases with background checks for people that have a LTC, is it going to be the wait again to buy?

This bill does nothing to the LTC program. It will be exactly the same (cost, requirements, benefits) as it was before. You still have to look for 30.06/7 and 51% signs, but can ignore pretty much any other anti-gun sign.

This will make it even more complicated. A lot of businesses still don't understand the 06/07 legalese like it is. So if you see an 06 sign, you can't carry with an LTC, but you can carry under the new law? To fix that, business will have to replace their current signage, or maybe add another sign to it, which will go over like a lead balloon.

I'm guessing if there is a 30.06 you can't carry under 30.05 because you are still an LTC holder and 30.06 applies to LTC holders.

I would say no because 30.06 says if you are carrying “under the authority” of your LTC. If that were the case then a peace officer with a LTC wouldn’t be able to carry either. If you really are worried about it then leave your LTC in the car. In order to carry under its authority you technically have to have it on your person.

flechero wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 10:55 am

There was lots of discussion about personal responsibility to learn the law since the everyone would not be taking the mandated LTC course.

We don't take general law classes to be free in society, but are expected to know that assault, theft, murder and a whole host of other things are illegal. I don't see the difference?

This is a great point! I am not in favor of adding a training requirement for unlicensed carry in part because that would make it a net negative bill. You would be adding an additional, not insignificant, requirement to exercise a right that is only being slightly expanded. For most folks without an LTC the only time this bill will increase their ability to legally carry is when they go into a store or restaurant. Maybe I don't get out much, but that averages to less than 5% of my total time.

As far as the other arguments towards just lowering the fee for an LTC instead of expanding unlicensed carry, there are also some LTC eligibility differences that would need to be eliminated. Basically, we would need to eliminate all LTC eligibility requirements that are not also requirements to legally own a firearm (not purchase from an FFL, but simply to own). The age for an LTC would have to be lowered to 18 for everyone, for starters.

Syntyr wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:10 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:03 pm

Syntyr wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 4:01 pm Amendment #7 Sen Birdwell
Creates an offense to those who carry on their own property while intoxicated.
Adopted

I dunno if I might point of order that. This bill pertains to carry in public by unlicensed individuals, not your private property.

Forgive me if I got it wrong. Yes, this is to make it an offense if an unlicensed individual is carrying a weapon on your private property or with permission of the property owner while you are intoxicated.

I don't love this one. I guess it goes to the definition of "carrying". I have a personal rule that before I touch drink #2 at my house during a party, etc., my gun comes off my side and into a safe. But if someone keeps their safe in the same room they are in while having a few drinks is that considered to be "carrying"?

Also, is there an exception to this if someone breaks into your house and you need to use a weapon in self defense while you are intoxicated?

I love the senator from Hidalgo who doesn't have a clue about current gun laws. Claiming that people who can't legally possess a gun will somehow be able to carry a gun now under this bill.

I especially liked it when he said that a cocaine addict could carry a gun under this bill. But I really wished that the author would have said "oh, you mean a criminal like Hunter Biden? Yeah he couldn't legally carry, just like he couldn't legally own a gun when he broke the current law. Those types of criminals will likely not follow any laws."