TexasCHLforum.com

FormerTSgt wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Any news on when the Senate will reconsider the House Amendments?
I don't see it on the Senate calendar.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Calendar ... S&ForLeg=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get the feeling they are just letting the clock run out on this. I can't understand why they went to all that effort just to let it run out of time.

The Wall wrote:So if HB910 doesn't pass the Senate, the House should turn around and pass SB17 & 11 as written, and watch Stickland squirm.

Ruark wrote:

CJD wrote:As far as I understand what others on this forum have said, it is because it wasn't substituted. Therefore, it has to go through the Senate the same as any other House bill, except, perhaps, it may be able to bypass a Committee hearing.

When it goes through the Senate, will they have to listen to all those silly opposition speeches again?

The Wall wrote:I'm wondering how long the Senate will sit on it.

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?

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?

MadMonkey wrote:What happens now? Back to the Senate, then a third reading in the House before a vote?

mojo84 wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:
Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

There is no requirement that you actually see the sign. As long as the sign is posted, you have received effective notice.

What if one enters through one of the three doors without a sign?

What if the sign is posted behind a counter and not conspicuous from the door in which one enters.

I do not believe just posting a sign is effective notice. I also do not believe it is acceptable to go out of one's way to not see a sign they know or may suspect is there.

ELB wrote:
Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

treadlightly wrote:

Scenario: You walk into a store that has 30.06 posted but for whatever reason you didn't see it. First of all if you are concealed carrying what are the odds someone will know. If you're open carrying and someone tells you that it's not allowed you just leave. The only way it would be a problem is if you don't leave and they call the police, or the police were in the store and saw you. If you leave and they call the police you'll more than likely be long gone by the time they get there. The last time I checked store owners can't issue tickets. I seriously doubt this is going to be a common occurrence. I've never been asked if I was carrying while in any business. I usually frequent the same businesses so know if they're posted or not. If it's a place I've never been before I make sure to look. I feel this amendment basically protects the CHL from being arrested and losing their license due to inadvertent or accidentally entering a posted premises.

The problem I see is that when you walk past a 30.06 sign you failed to see, you have still been presented with effective notice. You just didn't recognize it. You can lead a horse to a 30.06 sign, but you can't assume that makes him disarm, I guess.

As far as tickets, citations, or charges filed, I'm pretty sure you don't have to remain at the scene of the crime. Burgle and run, and a burgler can still get charged, tried, and convicted.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C 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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is based off the assumption that "miss enter the property" or "don't see the notice" provide exemptions for the Class A, but I don't see this anywhere in the code.

The Class C is the new penalty while exceptions are given for Class A... Seems to me they have to prove you should get a Class A, not the other way around.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

casp625 wrote: CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C 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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

ELB wrote: What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

casp625 wrote:

CJD wrote:

Tracker wrote: If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out why I don't think their argument of "after entering the property" made sense. Like I pointed out, 30.06 does not state that one must "see" the sign in order to receive notice, nor does the amendment say that "accidentally" entering the property is only a Class C.
If you enter the property, and a 30.06 sign is properly posted, then whether you see it or not, you are given effective notice and failing to depart.

With this in mind, I don't see a scenario in which one commits a Class C 30.06 trespass. If you can show me a scenario, I would love to be proven wrong.

CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C 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.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.