TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: ...

So, here is my question: is it now a matter of a certain someone actually letting it come to a vote on the floor before the full House? As in, if he doesn't let it, it just dies when the legislature adjourns?

HB910 was heard in committee in order to get the testimony and public hearing out of the way, and to get it on the House calendar for a floor vote. However, the bill that actually needs to be passed by the House in order for OC to go to the governor is its companion SB17 (since it was passed by the Senate), which hasn't been assigned yet. When/if it is assigned, presumably, to the HS and PS Committee, the intention is to report it favorably out of the committee without taking testimony again and then substitute it for HB910 on the calendar. At least that was how I understood the plan when I called Rep Phillips office yesterday.

G.A. Heath wrote:

bigity wrote:I could swear I heard Prat on Texas say this passed House committee yesterday, is that accurate or was I daydreaming on the way home from work?

HB910, Committee Substitute, which is this bill's companion passed the house yesterday.

CJD wrote:Arizona only requires you to basically not be a prohibited person, i.e. Felonies, domestic violence, mentally ill etc. The same standards that would apply were Constitutional Carry to pass.

G.A. Heath wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

Wes wrote:That does bring up a good question though. Sorry if it's been answered but I couldn't find it. For those who have an out of state license for concealed carry, will they be able to open carry under our open carry law if we have reciprocity with their licensed state for concealed carry?

There is nothing in the bill relating to reciprocity. Essentially you should be able to carry in either manner on an out of state license that is recognized by Texas.

jmra wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:NAGR and OCT are cut from the same cloth. After demanding unlicensed carry or nothing OCT suddenly started claiming credit for getting licensed OC to the point that it's at now and suddenly I am hearing that they are going back to attacking licensed carry again. I am already hearing some weird rumors getting started about licensed OC as well, here are four of the most laughable:

Rumor 1: If licensed OC passes and you have a concealed carry license from your state while your state has unlicensed open carry then you can only concealed carry in Texas if your state has reciprocity with Texas.

Rumor 2: Existing CHLs will not be allowed to open carry, they will have to surrender their license and wait 30/60/90 days before starting the process to get a new license.

Rumor 3: Licensed OC will destroy reciprocity.

Rumor 4: Licensed OC will be the only way anyone can carry in Texas if SB17/HB910 pass.

I am willing to bet most, if not all of these are started by unlicensed carry or nothing supporters trying to kill licensed carry because they feel that will give unlicensed carry a chance.

They are either intentionally starting false rumors or they are too stupid to understand the bills. I think it's a toss up.

I agree fully.

I did hear the concept of reciprocity come up during the debates and it was an interesting question. There wasn't really an answer for the question that was posed either however fortunately, that didn't hang things up. The question really is broader than OC. The question that came up was that if someone with a CHL had it taken away in TX but had a license from another state, wouldn't they still be able to carry under reciprocity. The implication was that this then goes against the spirit of taking away the CHL. I don't recall hearing it directly answered and fortunately things continued to move forward. It is an interesting question.

Reciprocity should not be affected by this bill, however some parties including some cases that have made themselves high profile(Cough, CJ Grisham, Cough) claim to be carrying under the license of another state that Texas recognizes. Some might say that this is reason to close the "reciprocity loophole", and there could be a push to try limiting reciprocity via an amendment to a bill that it may be germaine too. The problem with what CJ Grisham says or posts is I don't know who to believe CJ Grisham or ... CJ Grisham.

G.A. Heath wrote:

Wes wrote:That does bring up a good question though. Sorry if it's been answered but I couldn't find it. For those who have an out of state license for concealed carry, will they be able to open carry under our open carry law if we have reciprocity with their licensed state for concealed carry?

There is nothing in the bill relating to reciprocity. Essentially you should be able to carry in either manner on an out of state license that is recognized by Texas.

jmra wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:NAGR and OCT are cut from the same cloth. After demanding unlicensed carry or nothing OCT suddenly started claiming credit for getting licensed OC to the point that it's at now and suddenly I am hearing that they are going back to attacking licensed carry again. I am already hearing some weird rumors getting started about licensed OC as well, here are four of the most laughable:

Rumor 1: If licensed OC passes and you have a concealed carry license from your state while your state has unlicensed open carry then you can only concealed carry in Texas if your state has reciprocity with Texas.

Rumor 2: Existing CHLs will not be allowed to open carry, they will have to surrender their license and wait 30/60/90 days before starting the process to get a new license.

Rumor 3: Licensed OC will destroy reciprocity.

Rumor 4: Licensed OC will be the only way anyone can carry in Texas if SB17/HB910 pass.

I am willing to bet most, if not all of these are started by unlicensed carry or nothing supporters trying to kill licensed carry because they feel that will give unlicensed carry a chance.

They are either intentionally starting false rumors or they are too stupid to understand the bills. I think it's a toss up.

I agree fully.

Pawpaw wrote:Who is the guy talking now? He sounds like a TV evangelist.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:It sounds like the no campus OC amendment might pass. If so, then if I heard the amendment to the amendment correct, it is better. Since the amendment says partially or completely open would be banned, I like the, "knowingly or intentionally" language to help protect the unintentional display.

I'd prefer no amendment but if it's going to pass, this does look like an improvement.

Adding "knowingly" makes it easier to get a conviction. That's why the current concealment requires "intentional" conduct.

Chas.