HB1911 Com Substitute

[AJSully421]

Nevermind, misread the substitute version.

Also, removes the "shoulder or belt" part.

[G.A. Heath]

Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

[ScottDLS]

Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

What does 30.05 have to do with a 30.06/7 sign? There is no exemption for Peace Officers in 30.06/7 only the fact that it doesn't apply because even if they HAVE a LTC, they are not carrying under it's authority.

[tx85]

Houston Police Chief Mr. Acevedo just retweeted this:

[G.A. Heath]

Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

What does 30.05 have to do with a 30.06/7 sign? There is no exemption for Peace Officers in 30.06/7 only the fact that it doesn't apply because even if they HAVE a LTC, they are not carrying under it's authority.

I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

[Papa_Tiger]

Houston Police Chief Mr. Acevedo just retweeted this:

https://everytown.org/press/new-gun-vio ... ctivation/

The organization also announced today the formation of Everytown’s advisory board – a distinguished and diverse group of leaders and gun violence survivors: Art Acevedo, Tom Barrett, Stephen Barton, Michael Bloomberg, David Boren, Eli Broad, Warren Buffett, Gloria Chavez, David Chipman, Michael Coleman, Carlos Giménez, Roxanna Green, Nick Hanauer, Geoffrey Henry, Danny Jones, Ken Lerer, John Mack, Thomas Menino, Marc Morial, Mike Mullen, Michael Nutter, Annise Parker, Cleopatra Pendleton, Nathaniel Pendleton, Tom Ridge, Gilles Rousseau, Christy Salters Martin and Shannon Watts.

[TreyHouston]

I want a 30.08 and 30.09 for unlicensed CC and OC, and change one word in .06 and .07, making every current sign obsolete and invalid.

These also need to be printed in all voting languages as to not discriminate!!! I would throw a few bucks to challenge this law!

[locke_n_load]

Houston Police Chief Mr. Acevedo just retweeted this:

Well of course they do, most of those police organizations have been against every form of citizen's carrying from day 1, and they have been dead wrong every time, to the point that their "expert" testimony at bill hearings should be null, void, and not even given time at the podium in the first place.

[apostate]

Thanks to Artichoke Avocado for my new signature.

[locke_n_load]

Or what about a cop who also has a LTC. Does he have to have it off his person when he's in uniform to cross a 06/07?

I am going to put this absurd notion down as humanely as I can:
1. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(f) would provide a defense to prosecution if the sole reason that entry was prohibit is the possession of a firearm and the actor was carrying a license (It is very similar in the current language)

2. Texas Penal Code Section 30.05(i) eliminates applicability of criminal trespass if the sole reason entry is prohibited is the possession of a firearm and the actor is a peace officer.

So an officer with an LTC gets a defense to prosecution via 30.05(f) in addition to non-applicability granted by 30.05(i) just as they do today.

What does 30.05 have to do with a 30.06/7 sign? There is no exemption for Peace Officers in 30.06/7 only the fact that it doesn't apply because even if they HAVE a LTC, they are not carrying under it's authority.

I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

To date, I am not aware of any LEOs being charged with 30.06/30.07 when carrying on or off duty. It is a non-issue and carve outs are getting old, fast. LTC holders have a proven track record of being more law abiding than police, yet do not get the same carve outs. No more carve outs for cops, unless citizens get them too.

[ScottDLS]

I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

I don't think that you can say that you are always carrying under authority of LTC, just because you have one. This would mean that TODAY, a non-licensee could drive a car into a 30.06 posted parking lot (under MPA), but a licensee could not? Or as I posited an on duty LEO who happened to have a LTC could be banned with 30.06/7, but not a LEO without one.

Also, TODAY...in order to carry "under the authority" of your LTC you legally must have it on you (46.15). Additionally, is it legal for a non-LTC to carry in their home while intoxicated, but not a LTC (46.035). Not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt it's illegal.

If you TODAY have an LTC and you are at the (public) range openly displaying your handgun out of it's holster and shooting it, are you violating 46.035 because it is not in a shoulder or belt holster? Likewise while handgun hunting?

[ScottDLS]

...
To date, I am not aware of any LEOs being charged with 30.06/30.07 when carrying on or off duty. It is a non-issue and carve outs are getting old, fast. LTC holders have a proven track record of being more law abiding than police, yet do not get the same carve outs. No more carve outs for cops, unless citizens get them too.

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't think cops need a carve out, for the same reason that license holders won't need a carve out under the proposed language. You will not be carrying under the authority of your LTC (if HB1911) passes, because you won't need a LTC to be exempt from 46.02.

On the subject of LEO's charged with 30.06/7....well in 20 years, no CHL/LTC or LEO has ever been convicted of 30.06 or 30.05 (as it relates to handgun carry either).

There was the Section 24 of the Bill posted previously in this thread, that changed the definition of carrying under authority of GC 411 to both licensees and non licensees, but that is not apparently in the latest version.

[G.A. Heath]

I misunderstood what you were asking and thought you were asking about 30.05 (Thus the reason I thought it was an absurd notion). This is actually a very real problem and needs to be addressed in light of the current anti-police attitudes we are seeing from a number of surprising sources. The case could easily be made that an officer with an LTC violates 30.06/30.07 should they walk past a 30.06/30.07 sign, having a license on them or not does not change things. Additionally I was incorrect about a license holder being able to carry a handgun past a 30.06/30.07 sign if they did not have their license. Essentially a license holder is subject to 30.06/30.07 as long as their license is valid but they have a defense to prosecution from 30.05 should they have their license.
Perhaps Charles can add protection to 30.06/30.07 for LEOs in a future version of the bill to remove off limits locations to sweeten the pot and get additional support.

I don't think that you can say that you are always carrying under authority of LTC, just because you have one. This would mean that TODAY, a non-licensee could drive a car into a 30.06 posted parking lot (under MPA), but a licensee could not? Or as I posited an on duty LEO who happened to have a LTC could be banned with 30.06/7, but not a LEO without one.

Also, TODAY...in order to carry "under the authority" of your LTC you legally must have it on you (46.15). Additionally, is it legal for a non-LTC to carry in their home while intoxicated, but not a LTC (46.035). Not saying it's a good idea, but I doubt it's illegal.

If you TODAY have an LTC and you are at the (public) range openly displaying your handgun out of it's holster and shooting it, are you violating 46.035 because it is not in a shoulder or belt holster? Likewise while handgun hunting?

There are two groups of people who can legally carry a firearm in Texas. First is Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) the Second is License To Carry a handgun holders (LTCs). LEOs can, and some do, get LTCs or have them when they become LEOs. A LEO with an LTC is technically in violation of Texas penal code 30.07 when they are in uniform carrying openly and walk past a 30.07 sign. They are also in violation of 30.06 if they are carrying a concealed backup weapon and walk past a 30.06 sign, even if they are in uniform. 30.06 and 30.07 DO NOT provide an exception for peace officers. Should a prosecutor decide to make an issue out of an officer w/ an LTC carrying past a 30.06/30.07 the officer has little recourse. This would win the prosecutor a lot of votes from the anarchist and anti-LEO crowds. Should a license holder drive past a 30.06 sign (even w/o their license in their possession) into a posted parking lot a case could be made to prosecute them I suspect. The analysis that 30.06 applies to license holders even if they are not carrying under the authority of the license appears to be valid considering only the letter of the law.

As for an intoxicated LTC carrying in their home, I have no clue at this time as I am in need of sleep and I have no need to look into this so I will not (I suspect that a licensee is perfectly legal to carry in their home while intoxicated if a non-licensee is because 46.035 has a provision requiring the actor be carrying under the authority of the license). I suggest you ask an attorney who is more awake and more familiar with that aspect of the law.

At a public range, hunting, ect. are activities permitted under 46.02 and do not require a license. 46.035 does not apply in these instances I suspect, as I mentioned above in this post, but once again seek the advice of an attorney if you are concerned about it. The key difference between 46.035 and 30.06/30.07 is that 30.06/30.07 has no provision requiring the actor to be carrying under the authority of the license while 46.035 requires the actor carry under the authority of their license in order for it to apply. If you are involved in an activity that does not require the license then the license holder is logically not carrying under the authority of the license and can participate.

Arguments based on comparing 46.035 to 30.06/30.07 is like comparing Glocks and Oranges, You might make an argument that they are both desirable but you can not logically argue that they are both suitable for eating.

[ScottDLS]

There are two groups of people who can legally carry a firearm in Texas. First is Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) the Second is License To Carry a handgun holders (LTCs). LEOs can, and some do, get LTCs or have them when they become LEOs. A LEO with an LTC is technically in violation of Texas penal code 30.07 when they are in uniform carrying openly and walk past a 30.07 sign. They are also in violation of 30.06 if they are carrying a concealed backup weapon and walk past a 30.06 sign, even if they are in uniform. 30.06 and 30.07 DO NOT provide an exception for peace officers. Should a prosecutor decide to make an issue out of an officer w/ an LTC carrying past a 30.06/30.07 the officer has little recourse. This would win the prosecutor a lot of votes from the anarchist and anti-LEO crowds. Should a license holder drive past a 30.06 sign (even w/o their license in their possession) into a posted parking lot a case could be made to prosecute them I suspect. The analysis that 30.06 applies to license holders even if they are not carrying under the authority of the license appears to be valid considering only the letter of the law.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF 46.02 TO HANDGUN CARRY IN TEXAS AND ONLY 2 OF THEM ARE LEO EXCEPTION AND LTC. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHERS, NONE OF WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO 30.06/7 OR 46.035 WHICH ONLY APPLY WHEN CARRYING UNDER GC 411 AUTHORITY

30.06/7 DO NOT HAVE AN EXCEPTION FOR PEACE OFFICERS BECAUSE JUST LIKE 46.035, THEY ONLY APPLY WHEN YOU ARE CARRYING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF YOUR LTC

As for an intoxicated LTC carrying in their home, I have no clue at this time as I am in need of sleep and I have no need to look into this so I will not (I suspect that a licensee is perfectly legal to carry in their home while intoxicated if a non-licensee is because 46.035 has a provision requiring the actor be carrying under the authority of the license). I suggest you ask an attorney who is more awake and more familiar with that aspect of the law.

30.06/7 HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME PROVISION THAT 46.035 HAS

At a public range, hunting, ect. are activities permitted under 46.02 and do not require a license. 46.035 does not apply in these instances I suspect, as I mentioned above in this post, but once again seek the advice of an attorney if you are concerned about it. The key difference between 46.035 and 30.06/30.07 is that 30.06/30.07 has no provision requiring the actor to be carrying under the authority of the license while 46.035 requires the actor carry under the authority of their license in order for it to apply. If you are involved in an activity that does not require the license then the license holder is logically not carrying under the authority of the license and can participate.

FROM THE STATUTE

PC §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 concealed handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and

Arguments based on comparing 46.035 to 30.06/30.07 is like comparing Glocks and Oranges, You might make an argument that they are both desirable but you can not logically argue that they are both suitable for eating.

SINCE 46.035 AND 30.06/7 CONTAIN EXACTLY THE SAME LANGUAGE APPLYING GC 411 AUTHORITY THEY ARE LIKE COMPARING RUGERS AND RUGERS

[G.A. Heath]

It's amazing what having time to read instead of skim and having more than 3 hours sleep can do. I completely missed that part of 06/07 but I take responsibility. This is why I have not been podcasting, too many irons in too many fires and not enough of me to tend them all. Also a phone isn't thebest device to read and post from