jordanmills wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:You are discounting the importance of the required element of "effective notice." Without it, there can be no arrest or conviction for criminal trespass and you acknowledge that the notice is only to persons carrying concealed.
It's ironic that the main concern about open-carry expressed by many people was the likelihood that the legislature would amend TPC §30.06 to apply to both open-carry and concealed-carry. Instead of taking steps to prevent this, HB2756 does precisely this! There's no way to defend the amendment to TPC §30.06.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that TPC §30.06 would be a gray area if HB2756 were to pass without an amendment to TPC §30.06. HB2756's amendment of TPC §30.06 removes any question as it absolutely does make it apply to both open-carry and concealed-carry. In terms of its impact on concealed-carry, this is a worst case scenario.
This bill probably won't go anywhere, based upon the lack of so-authors/sponsors and the fact that we are essentially working with only half a session because of the time that will be spent on redistricting and budget. Nevertheless, serious consideration should be given to a committee substitute to fix HB2756's problems.
Chas.
The law says that one has received effective notice by the conspicuous posting of a sign with specified verbiage (and other factors not relevant to this point), regardless of the actual verbiage on the sign. I don't believe there could be any provision for directing the notice to any group of people.
I'm not sure what you mean, but if you are saying that the current wording of TPC §30.06 would apply to both open-carry and concealed-carry you are wrong. It's clear and unambiguous by the express language required. Your contention that a trespass notice cannot be directed "to any group of people" is also in error. It's done all the time and TPC §30.06 is a great example. It applies only to people who are 1) licensed CHL's; and 2) who are carrying a concealed handgun.
jordanmills wrote:Isn't this the legislature making the spoken-of amendment?
No, this isn't the "legislature" screwing up TPC §30.06, it's the person/persons who drafted this bill and sent it to Rep. Lavender, a first term Representative.
jordanmills wrote:Haven't you yourself said that the only way to get such a bill passed would be to make that amendment?
No, that's not what I said, so quit twisting my words to support this very poor bill. In response to concerns about an epidemic of 30.06 signs being posted if open-carry passed; open-carry supporters naively suggested that the legislature could create two different signs, one for open-carry and TPC §30.06 for concealed-carry. (Apparently, open-carry supporters didn't want to be subject to pre-30.06 "ghost buster" signs.) I said the legislature wouldn't create a two-sign requirement (ex. TPC §§30.06 & 30.07), but that doesn't mean you become your own enemy, or throw CHL's under the buss, by creating a worst case scenario. Had HB2756 left TPC §30.06 alone, then someone would have to offer an amendment that would apply TPC §30.06 to both open and concealed carry. If the bill drafters' homework had been done, this amendment could be countered, but if the amendment carried, then you need a bill author who has the courage to kill his own bill. Who knows, we may have gotten lucky and the bill could get passed without anyone thinking about trespass signs at all. Not now; the only way to get rid of the amendment to TPC §30.06 is to offer a committee substitute, committee amendment, or floor amendment and that will call everyone's attention to trespass signs.
jordanmills wrote:If they're basically following what you (possibly unintentionally) set out as instructions for passage of such an open carry provision, why are you now decrying it?
There's nothing about HB2756 that comes remotely close to what I suggested. I listed precisely what was wrong with the horrendous bill OpenCarry.org suggested for Texas in 2009, noting that it was far too long and unnecessarily opened up massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendments. I also said that open-carry could be achieved with a one or two page bill. HB2756 looks nothing like my suggestions, so don't try to blame this albatross on me.
jordanmills wrote:I agree that it does remove any question, and makes our above discussion on the applicability of 30.06 notice nothing more than fun game of arguing technicalities. I agree with your assessment of the bill's prospects of passage, and the reasons you base it on. I don't see them as problems though - I see them as concessions necessary (in your own estimation!) to give a bill of this sort a chance of passage at this time.
Apparently you are willing to sacrifice the protection of TPC §30.06 currently enjoyed by 461,000 CHLs to get open-carry passed. I am not.
jordanmills wrote:Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
(1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
You have to read the entire code provision, not just the language on which you want to focus. The required notice applies only to carrying a concealed handgun, thus TPC §30.06 applies only to concealed-carry. Your arguments about TPC §30.06 are simply wrong, but I understand you feel the need to try to defend that portion of HB2756 that amends 30.06. Otherwise, you would be forced to admit that the Bill throws CHL's under the buss and invites the very problem that concern many CHLs - an epidemic of new 30.06 signs.
Chas.
