TexasCHLforum.com

Concealed handgun:
HB 2730 amends numerous provisions regarding concealed handgun licenses (CHLs), including eliminating student loan defaults as a disqualifier, to clarify that DPS must suspend or revoke a license when the licensee becomes ineligible and mandating that a magistrate suspend a CHL held by the subject of an emergency protective order.

HB 2664 provides a defense to prosecution if a concealed handgun license holder carries a concealed handgun into an establishment that gets 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages, but has failed to post the statutorily required notice that it derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages. (Under current law, a concealed handgun licensee can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for doing this.)

HB 2730 removes DPS authority to suspend a concealed handgun license (CHL) for the holder’s failure to display the CHL to a peace officer on demand. It removes associated penalties and suspensions for the failure to display.

A good reminder dw. Thanks.

HB 2730 removes DPS authority to suspend a concealed handgun license (CHL) for the holder’s failure to display the CHL to a peace officer on demand. It removes associated penalties and suspensions for the failure to display.

Can anyone expand on this. I'm sure it is still required to show your CHL when pulled over. Is this refering to when an officer just asks for no reason?

Backwoods wrote:I'm sure it is still required to show your CHL when pulled over.

Source please. I don't see an exemption for traffic stops in the HB 2730 changes.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB2730" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They really won't ask just for no reason. It refers to when an officer askes you for I.D. If we are carrying we must also show our CHL I.D. This just eliminates the penalty for forgetting to do so. If you give them your DL and they check that and find out you have a CHL they'll come back and ask specifically. If you're carrying you should show it, the license, at that point. If you're not you could still show it if you have it or you could tell the officer you're not carrying and aren't required to show it when not carrying. Do it politely, though, it could tick them off if you do it in a nasty way.

The only part I'm fuzzy on is if we are unable to show it because we forgot it in another car or jacket or something. Some folks do not keep it in their wallet or with their driver's license.

After reading the bill, from the link boomerang posted, it appears as though even if we refuse to display it there will be no penalty. I can refuse to display it if I don't have it with me.
I always do ahve it with me and unless there was a real good reason not to I would show it even if I weren't carrying at the time.

C-dub wrote:After reading the bill, from the link boomerang posted, it appears as though even if we refuse to display it there will be no penalty. I can refuse to display it if I don't have it with me.
I always do ahve it with me and unless there was a real good reason not to I would show it even if I weren't carrying at the time.

That is how I understand it. I read here this was the only way they could get an improvement passed on this issue. So, basically they pulled the teeth of the law so while it is still a requirement to show the CHL they can do nothing to a CHL holder for not doing it.

Maybe we can do away with the requirement in 2011. That is if we are willing to increase the numbers of and make our positions known to the TSRA. After this last session I have been convinced of just how hard the anti-freedom types are working on the state level now. The TSRA is the only hope we have to combat them. Everything from CHL to hunting is in danger in Austin and not just Washington, D.C. now days.

HOUSE RESEARCH HB 2664
ORGANIZATION bill analysis 5/1/2009 Ritter
SUBJECT: Defense to prosecution if a bar fails to post handgun ban warning sign
COMMITTEE: Public Safety — favorable, without amendment
VOTE: 9 ayes — Merritt, Frost, Burnam, Driver, P. King, Lewis, Mallory Caraway, Rodriguez, Vo; 0 nays
WITNESSES:
For — (Registered, but did not testify: Thorton Burfine; Steven Johnson; Tara Mica, National Rifle Association; Raymond H. Smith; Alice Tripp, Texas State Rifle Association) Against — None
BACKGROUND:
Under Penal Code, sec. 46.035, concealed handgun license holders commit an offense if the they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry handguns, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on the premises of a business that has an Alcoholic Beverage Code permit for the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and derives 51 percent of more of its income from on-premise alcohol sales. A violation of this provision is a third-degree felony (two to 10 years in prison and an optional fine of up to $10,000). Government Code, sec. 411.204 requires that a business that derives 51 of its income from on-premise sales or service of alcoholic beverages must display a sign at its entrance warning that it is a crime to carry to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must give notice in both English and Spanish, and the warning must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height.
DIGEST:
HB 2664 would amend Penal Code, sec. 46.035 to provide a defense to prosecution of a concealed handgun license holder who carried a gun into a bar if the bar failed to display the warning sign required by Government Code, sec. 411.204. The bill would apply to convictions on or after the bill’s September 1, 2009, effective date.
HB 2664
House Research Organization

SUPPORTERS SAY:
HB 2664 would provide a fair way to challenge the charge of unlawfully carrying a weapon where alcoholic beverages are served. A defense to prosecution is an intermediate step between an affirmative defense, when the defendant has to raise and prove the legal issue, and an exception to prosecution, when the prosecutor must raise and refute the issue even if the defense does not raise the objection. Law-abiding handgun owners are accustomed to seeing warning notices posted at businesses where they cannot carry their weapon. Without these signs, concealed handgun license holders have no way to know whether the business derives 51 percent of its income from the on-premise sale of alcohol and could unwittingly become liable for severe penalties. They should be able to introduce into evidence that the sign was not posted properly and argue they did not violate the law. HB 2664 could provide some savings to the state by reducing the number of those facing time in prison. Prosecuting felonies and incarcerating those convicted of such offenses is expensive.

OPPONENTS SAY:
A defense to prosecution would not necessarily assure that a concealed handgun license holder would escape punishment for carrying a handgun into a bar. It might be difficult to prove that at the time the warning sign was not properly posted. Police still could arrest the person, and prosecutors could file charges on lesser offenses, such as disorderly conduct or public intoxication. While these other violations do not carry the same penalties as a third degree felony, concealed handgun license holders still could face suspension of their permits for convictions of other offenses or have their handguns confiscated and not returned.

NOTES:
The companion bill, SB 729 by Hegar, passed the Senate by 31-0 on April 9 on the Local and Uncontested Calendar and has been referred to the House Public Safety Committee.

Concealed is concealed.

Last one caught my attention...seems like a big change

Here is my two cents.
1- I dont drink or go into bars. I am as opposed to carrying and drinking as I am to drinking and driving. Guns and alcohol do not mix.

2- I will continue to provide any LEO that stops me with both CHL and DL, as well as telling him that I am a CHL holder and that I am carrying. I will tell him I am ex LEO, and if he feels better disarming me then I will be happy to allow him to do so. I have done this since the day I had a CHL, I did this prior to CHL and I have NEVER had any LEO disarm me, nor have I ever received a ticket.

dac1842 wrote:Here is my two cents.
1- I dont drink or go into bars. I am as opposed to carrying and drinking as I am to drinking and driving. Guns and alcohol do not mix.

2- I will continue to provide any LEO that stops me with both CHL and DL, as well as telling him that I am a CHL holder and that I am carrying. I will tell him I am ex LEO, and if he feels better disarming me then I will be happy to allow him to do so. I have done this since the day I had a CHL, I did this prior to CHL and I have NEVER had any LEO disarm me, nor have I ever received a ticket.

For many of the issue of going into bars has nothing to do with imbibing. Taverns and cafes serve as public meeting places for social, business, politics and insurrection ever since the middle ages. I once got nominated.

I personally will never be happy to be disarmed or arrested or treated in any way like I'm a criminal. Although it it hasn't happened to me yet either.

dac1842 wrote:2- I will continue to provide any LEO that stops me with both CHL and DL, as well as telling him that I am a CHL holder and that I am carrying. I will tell him I am ex LEO,

I will continue to drink coffee with breakfast.

If I recall correctly, there was some discusson concerning the requirement for CHL holders to identify, while those unlicensed carrying under the Motorist's Protection Act did not have to identify that they had a gun in the vehicle. Could this change be related to that?

Commander wrote:If I recall correctly, there was some discusson concerning the requirement for CHL holders to identify, while those unlicensed carrying under the Motorist's Protection Act did not have to identify that they had a gun in the vehicle. Could this change be related to that?

The last one, HB 2730, only removes the penalty, not the requirement to show our CHL.