Open Carry News Tidbit

[jordanmills]

I've read it. Again, read the bit in 30.06 about "under the authority of". And read my post again while you're at it.

So you're saying that the currently proposed bill does not include open as well as concealed carry under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code in the 30.06 wording?

I'm saying you can carry, open and concealed, under authority other than that subchapter. And if you do, 30.06 does not appear to apply.

[Aggie_engr]

I understand there are currently other authorities to carry a handgun under besides being licensed (none of which applies to chl ). If unlicensed open carry passes, and the average joe can now openly carry his handgun wo a license, the State of Texas will not pass such a bill that would deny businesses the right to ban said handguns from the property/establishment. The sign to bar unlicensed open carry may not be 30.06, but could very well take the form of a gunbuster or plain no guns sign such as in other states that currently allow unlicensed open carry.

Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

This statement does not hold water. Do you mean signs as in "any signs" or only "legal 30.06 signs?" I agree, 30.06 will no longer apply but you can expect avenues in some form or fashion that will allow private businesses to ban us regular folk from carrying handguns. I'm no talking about LEO, special permission, or super secret squirrel provisions either.

[C-dub]

Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

I believe you are missing the point, and that point being that 30.06/gun buster, licensed/unlicensed, concealed/open, there will always be a provision in the law to allow businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment. I don't see how the wonders of unlicensed open carry would magically negate this reality?

The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

That is true, but we are discussing the open carry bill that has been introduced in the current session, which strikes out concealed three times in your statement above, which just leaves "handgun" and no distinction between open or concealed, which to me means all handguns regardless of method of carry. Read the bill here. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I figured it would have to be changed. I have not read the bill introduced.

[jordanmills]

I understand there are currently other authorities to carry a handgun under besides being licensed (none of which applies to chl ). If unlicensed open carry passes, and the average joe can now openly carry his handgun wo a license, the State of Texas will not pass such a bill that would deny businesses the right to ban said handguns from the property/establishment. The sign to bar unlicensed open carry may not be 30.06, but could very well take the form of a gunbuster or plain no guns sign such as in other states that currently allow unlicensed open carry.

Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

This statement does not hold water. Do you mean signs as in "any signs" or only "legal 30.06 signs?" I agree, 30.06 will no longer apply but you can expect avenues in some form or fashion that will allow private businesses to ban us regular folk from carrying handguns. I'm no talking about LEO, special permission, or super secret squirrel provisions either.

The sign already is a 30.06, dude. How are you not getting this? TPC 30.06, as it stands, would prohibit entry of someone carrying open OR concealed under the law as modified by HB 2756. I suspect that significant thought was given to that when this bill was crafted.

The statement holds plenty of water. You just need to read it. "These signs" refers to compliant 30.06 signs. Go back and read it again. Slowly. People can already carry under other authorities, and there are no signs or rumors of signs coming to prohibit it.

[jordanmills]

Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

I believe you are missing the point, and that point being that 30.06/gun buster, licensed/unlicensed, concealed/open, there will always be a provision in the law to allow businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment. I don't see how the wonders of unlicensed open carry would magically negate this reality?

The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

That is true, but we are discussing the open carry bill that has been introduced in the current session, which strikes out concealed three times in your statement above, which just leaves "handgun" and no distinction between open or concealed, which to me means all handguns regardless of method of carry. Read the bill here. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I figured it would have to be changed. I have not read the bill introduced.

I'm pretty certain it won't. TCP 30.06 appears to apply just fine to the law as modified by HB 2756.

[flb_78]

Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

Says who? Name one state that doesn't have a clause allowing businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment? Thesr signs, whether 30.06 or not will always apply.

In Kentucky, there are no legally enforceable signs banning open carry. There is only 1 legally enforceable sign that can ban concealed carry and it can only be posted on govt buildings, but if they post the sign, they still cannot ban open carry inside the govt building.

The only way a person can be arrested is if they are verbally told to leave the premises and refuse, then they can be arrested for trespass.

[steveincowtown]

Could any of the folks here who are of the mindset that "signs will be everywhere" if we get Open Carry point to where this has happened in any of the states which have OC or just recently got OC?

I lived in VA for many years and never once was asked to leave a place or encountered a sign that even implied "no OC." There was a bar that required that you put you gun in a locker before entering, but only if you were going to ride the mechanical bull.....yes really.

[jordanmills]

Could any of the folks here who are of the mindset that "signs will be everywhere" if we get Open Carry point to where this has happened in any of the states which have OC or just recently got OC?

I lived in VA for many years and never once was asked to leave a place or encountered a sign that even implied "no OC." There was a bar that required that you put you gun in a locker before entering, but only if you were going to ride the mechanical bull.....yes really.

It's just another embarrassment that we don't have that in Texas first either.

[The Annoyed Man]

Put a property who wants to ban open carry under a different rule, that way they have to buy two signs if they really want to ban all guns

It won't work that way because a) it is easier for the Legislature to amend 30.06 and its signage requirement than it is to write a whole separate law into the code; and b) anything that only requires businesses to buy one sign instead of two is going to get more support from business interests that want to keep guns out.

[denwego]

Could any of the folks here who are of the mindset that "signs will be everywhere" if we get Open Carry point to where this has happened in any of the states which have OC or just recently got OC?

I lived in VA for many years and never once was asked to leave a place or encountered a sign that even implied "no OC." There was a bar that required that you put you gun in a locker before entering, but only if you were going to ride the mechanical bull.....yes really.

That was my experience living in VA as well. Grocery stores, restaurants, Walmarts, dog parks, doctor's office... if you walk around while openly carrying and don't act like it's a big deal, no one around you treats it like a big deal, either.

And don't forget that Texas has size, wording, and posting-visibly requirements, and very few businesses post enforceable signs. I think most people would still carry concealed almost all the time and the status-quo we have now would go right on going into the ages.

[billv]

And don't forget that Texas has size, wording, and posting-visibly requirements, and very few businesses post enforceable signs. I think most people would still carry concealed almost all the time and the status-quo we have now would go right on going into the ages.

So if I got this right, then the only sign that is valid for banning carrying a firearm into a business is a 30.06 sign? Any other sign, no matter how it's written, is not enforceable? I can be asked to leave the premises and if I don't then I'm committing trespass - I got that. My question on about non-30.06 signs.

Now last Friday I was in a private business that has a satellite US Post office that's run by contract. Since it's an official US post office but not on Federal land, I was wondering about carrying there. But I also noticed a gun buster sign as I was leaving. I laughed, it almost looked comical. Is that sign legal?

[Kythas]

That was my experience living in VA as well. Grocery stores, restaurants, Walmarts, dog parks, doctor's office... if you walk around while openly carrying and don't act like it's a big deal, no one around you treats it like a big deal, either.

This may also be the case here in Texas.

Last week I was at a restaurant with my girlfriend. We were sitting in a booth and I was sitting so my gun side was toward the outside of the booth. We went our entire meal with the waiter coming to our table, people sitting in a table to my right, people walking by, etc. I realized as I got up to go to the bathroom after paying the check that, apparently, my shirt rode up when I got in the booth and got hung behind my gun. My gun was visible the entire time I was sitting there. I had no idea and nobody screamed or did anything.

I simply re-concealed and made my way to the bathroom. Upon returning to the table I told my girlfriend that my gun had been exposed the entire time we'd been sitting there. She shrugged and said "Oh, well. I guess it's not a big deal."

While I agree there will be some people who freak out, the majority of people won't see it as a big deal. I guess if anyone ever freaks out if I become unconcealed, I'll just do what Brass Monkey did one time when a gust of wind unconcealed him and a lady yelled "Oh my God, he has a gun!". BM calmly re-concealed and said "Lady, this is Texas. Deal with it."

[redlin67]

I believe that if and when OC does get passed that there will be some initial reaction, but if this is what everyone is so worried about, then you will never be ready. I seriously doubt that there will be very many open carrying anyway. Coming from a permitless open carry state, it has never been an issue there, and after the initial shock, it won't be here either.

From the KY State Constitution:
Bill of Rights, Section I

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

[74novaman]

among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

Am I the only one who saw that word and started reading it with a little more twang?
I reckon that's a pretty good state constitution!

[redlin67]

I reckon that you are dissin mah rearin'. I'll take you out yonnie back o the barn and whup your hide.