Texas Illegal Knife Bill unanimously passes out of committee.

[K.Mooneyham]

Well, considering this bill is likely now to become law, when will it take effect?

[gduncan52]

The bill itself says it takes effect on Sept. 1, 2017.

[ELB]

So I put what I think to be the final changes (from the Senate Committee report) into the current PC Section 46 text, and looked to see what exactly has changed. My summary:

"Illegal Knives" are history, and are illegal no more. As well, throwing knives intended to cut or stab another, daggers, dirks, stilettos, poniards, bowie knives (!), swords, and spears are no longer "illegal knives" and are no longer generally prohibited by Texas law.

Any bladed hand instrument capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person with it is a "knife." This is the same definition as previous, no changes made to it. Previously swords and spears and such were listed separately, implying they might be different, but now everything pointy is a knife under the law, it seems.

A "location-restricted knife" (LRK in my parlance) is a knife with a blade OVER five and one-half inches.

Anyone under the age of 18 is generally restricted from carrying an LRK unless he is on his own premises or premises under his control, own vehicle/watercraft under his ownership or control, or under DIRECT supervision of a parent or legal guardian. Class C Misdemeanor otherwise. It is also illegal to offer, sell, lease, transfer a LRK to someone under 18 - but permission of the parent or guardian is a defense to prosecution (same as before with illegal knives and firearms).

Adults are restricted from carrying LRKs in all the same places that a person who is licensed to carry is restricted from carrying a handgun EXCEPT: ==>>Meetings of Governmental Entities subject to open meeting rules.
I think it is very interesting that you can now take your Bowie to an open meeting of a governmental entity that provides effective notice against LTC carry. I'll bet somebody does that early on. (Take care: some open meetings are held in "court rooms".)

Note that both handguns (carried under LTC) and LRKs are not supposed to be carried in hospitals, nursing facilities, amusement parks, and places of worship. For this to have force of law against handgun carry there has to be effective notice. There is no effective notice requirement for LRKs. Hospitals and nursing facilities can issue written permission for the carry of LRKs. Apparently churches can't.

No LRK at mental hospitals -- but the hospital can issue written permission to carry.

There are various defenses to prosecution available to those carrying firearms or clubs while members of the armed forces on duty, security guards, etc. None of these seem to apply to LRKs (just as they did not apply to "illegal knives.")

This is what I got out of it so far. Corrections and updates welcome.

[Jusme]

I guess we can now do a machete Wally Walk!!! (after Sept 1)

[locke_n_load]

I guess we can now do a machete Wally Walk!!! (after Sept 1)

Makes you wonder "wasn't it illegal to buy a machete in a physical store before this bill because you would have had to take possession outside of your property?"

[Pariah3j]

I guess we can now do a machete Wally Walk!!! (after Sept 1)

Makes you wonder "wasn't it illegal to buy a machete in a physical store before this bill because you would have had to take possession outside of your property?"

The previous law had the exception of having the illegal weapons/blades if you were directly in route to a motor vehicle or watercraft in your possession or under your control - so you would have been fine as long as you didn't go elsewhere after buying it.

[Jusme]

The new law won't effect me too much, but I do have a Woodman's Pal, and an Ontario Sp-8 that I carry in my truck, pretty regularly. My SP-8 is part of my GHB.

I'm just glad they are doing away with some of these ridiculous laws. They have never prevented anyone from being injured or killed by a knife, and were for the most part only selectively enforced, and arbitrarily prosecuted. I have no intentions of walking around with a saber, or katana, mainly because I carry enough around all the time. But any law that restricts a person's ability to bear arms, needs to be removed. JMHO

[Pariah3j]

I'm just glad they are doing away with some of these ridiculous laws. They have never prevented anyone from being injured or killed by a knife, and were for the most part only selectively enforced, and arbitrarily prosecuted. I have no intentions of walking around with a saber, or katana, mainly because I carry enough around all the time. But any law that restricts a person's ability to bear arms, needs to be removed. JMHO

[ELB]

The restrictions, the list of places you can't take a "location-restricted knife", illustrates the problem with of trying to get constitutional carry in place before removing all the restrictions on licensed carry.

The fact that there are restrictions on people who have background checks etc "sanctifies" the concept of "places too sensitive to allow [guns, knives, whatever], and the specific list is far too big and gives the aura of legal anti-gun hallowedness to these places. If you can't trust the holders of licenses, with their stellar history in Texas, to carry in those place then certainly you can't regular Joe Citizen, with no background check or training etc to tote his sidearm in the same places. Nor his 5.5"-plus knife.

I dunno what was up with HB560 this session, but certainly did not get the impression it was any kind of priority for NRA, TSRA, or anybody beyond the confines of this forum. It should have been.

[bigtek]

I dunno what was up with HB560 this session, but certainly did not get the impression it was any kind of priority for NRA, TSRA, or anybody beyond the confines of this forum. It should have been.

HB 560 was a priority for people who are pro gun and licensed to carry but HB 1911 seems like it had a higher priority for people who are pro gun but aren't licensed to carry. Which is a larger population?

[K.Mooneyham]

So, the bill wasn't signed by the Governor today. What happens to it if he doesn't sign it? Does it just disappear, despite being passed by both House and Senate?

[mccloven27]

So, the bill wasn't signed by the Governor today. What happens to it if he doesn't sign it? Does it just disappear, despite being passed by both House and Senate?

I could be wrong on this but I believe if a bill isn't signed or rejected within ten days of hitting his desk it automatically becomes law.

[Flightmare]

So, the bill wasn't signed by the Governor today. What happens to it if he doesn't sign it? Does it just disappear, despite being passed by both House and Senate?

I could be wrong on this but I believe if a bill isn't signed or rejected within ten days of hitting his desk it automatically becomes law.

That is generally correct, but there is an exception. If a bill is sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, the governor has until 20 days after final adjournment to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/

[ELB]

I dunno what was up with HB560 this session, but certainly did not get the impression it was any kind of priority for NRA, TSRA, or anybody beyond the confines of this forum. It should have been.

HB 560 was a priority for people who are pro gun and licensed to carry but HB 1911 seems like it had a higher priority for people who are pro gun but aren't licensed to carry. Which is a larger population?

And it didn't go all that much farther than 560.

[J.R.@A&M]

Just came across this background article on knife rights issues http://www.realclearinvestigations.com/ ... _laws.html .