HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

[Ruark]

Removes the Dutton amendment which prohibits officers from using the mere presence of a holstered handgun to make an investigatory stop and inquiry.

That's an interesting concept. Under current law, they can check to see if you have an LTC. If this passes, however, you won't need an LTC. So what would there be to inquire about?

[Papa_Tiger]

Removes the Dutton amendment which prohibits officers from using the mere presence of a holstered handgun to make an investigatory stop and inquiry.

That's an interesting concept. Under current law, they can check to see if you have an LTC. If this passes, however, you won't need an LTC. So what would there be to inquire about?

If you are a prohibited person under State or Federal law. If you are a felon or prohibited person in possession of a firearm under this iteration of the bill, you would be committing a third degree felony.

[ScottDLS]

Removes the Dutton amendment which prohibits officers from using the mere presence of a holstered handgun to make an investigatory stop and inquiry.

That's an interesting concept. Under current law, they can check to see if you have an LTC. If this passes, however, you won't need an LTC. So what would there be to inquire about?

While I would have preferred to see this amendment remain, under current US Supreme Court precedent, police are not allowed to detain and/or search an individual without a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. That pesky 4th amendment always getting in the way of "public safety".

[Rafe]

Amend HB 1927 (senate committee printing) by striking the recital to SECTION 17 of the bill (page 6, lines 9-11) and substituting the following:
SECTION 17. Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsections (c), (d-3), and (f-4) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to read as follows:
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

30.05 sign preventing carry of a firearm. Very strongly opposed to this as worded. The language is not specific enough as evidenced by the "or substantially similar to the following" - we don't want judges deciding what constitutes "substantially similar" as we will get a different answer every time. LTC holders would still have a defense to prosecution under 30.05 (f), but again it is a defense to prosecution, not non-applicability. "You can beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

I think it may be even a little worse than that. As Ruark wrote, it looks like we'd be adding back item (c) which was repealed in 2009, and using only the word "firearm." The defense to prosecution in item (f) is quite explicit in using the word "handgun" only. On the surface, I would take Schwertner's F13 to end up meaning, "substantially similar" issue aside, that a 30.05 posting would also then exclude every type of firearm that was not a handgun carried expressly under a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411. HB 1927 itself strikes the "shoulder or belt" requirement and logically changes it to just "a handgun...in a holster," so open carry would actually be improved, not hindered. But aren't we adding a restriction regarding rifles and shotguns that doesn't exist today?

And if anyone wants to find out more about these Texas Senate critters: https://senate.texas.gov/members.php. Schwertner describes himself as a physician, family man, business owner, and a life-long conservative. Admittedly his amendments weren't off-the-wall goofy like some of the failed Dems' offerings, but I can't say that "life-long conservative" would be the first thing that comes to mind with all of the seven amendments he pushed and got adopted.

[Papa_Tiger]

Amend HB 1927 (senate committee printing) by striking the recital to SECTION 17 of the bill (page 6, lines 9-11) and substituting the following:
SECTION 17. Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsections (c), (d-3), and (f-4) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to read as follows:
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

30.05 sign preventing carry of a firearm. Very strongly opposed to this as worded. The language is not specific enough as evidenced by the "or substantially similar to the following" - we don't want judges deciding what constitutes "substantially similar" as we will get a different answer every time. LTC holders would still have a defense to prosecution under 30.05 (f), but again it is a defense to prosecution, not non-applicability. "You can beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

I think it may be even a little worse than that. As Ruark wrote, it looks like we'd be adding back item (c) which was repealed in 2009, and using only the word "firearm." The defense to prosecution in item (f) is quite explicit in using the word "handgun" only. On the surface, I would take Schwertner's F13 to end up meaning, "substantially similar" issue aside, that a 30.05 posting would also then exclude every type of firearm that was not a handgun carried expressly under a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411. HB 1927 itself strikes the "shoulder or belt" requirement and logically changes it to just "a handgun...in a holster," so open carry would actually be improved, not hindered. But aren't we adding a restriction regarding rifles and shotguns that doesn't exist today?

And if anyone wants to find out more about these Texas Senate critters: https://senate.texas.gov/members.php. Schwertner describes himself as a physician, family man, business owner, and a life-long conservative. Admittedly his amendments weren't off-the-wall goofy like some of the failed Dems' offerings, but I can't say that "life-long conservative" would be the first thing that comes to mind with all of the seven amendments he pushed and got adopted.

This is an addition of a restriction on non-handguns that would likely make this not-germane to the bill. It is likely the House would find this acceptable if the language was changed to state "handgun". One of those details that will have to be worked out in conference committee.

I believe Schwertner (and some of those on the fence) were very heavily influenced by the LEO brass as nearly all of these amendments are things that law enforcement wanted. LEOs were complaining about bad guys on the streets - talk to your DAs and judges about that (looking at YOU Harris county and Sarah Eckhardt...).

[ScottDLS]

Amend HB 1927 (senate committee printing) by striking the recital to SECTION 17 of the bill (page 6, lines 9-11) and substituting the following:
SECTION 17. Section 30.05, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsections (c), (d-3), and (f-4) and amending Subsections (d) and (f) to read as follows:
(c) A person may provide notice that firearms are prohibited on the property by posting a sign at each entrance to the property that:
(1) includes language that is identical to or substantially similar to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm";
(2) includes the language described by Subdivision (1) in both English and Spanish;
(3) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(4) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

30.05 sign preventing carry of a firearm. Very strongly opposed to this as worded. The language is not specific enough as evidenced by the "or substantially similar to the following" - we don't want judges deciding what constitutes "substantially similar" as we will get a different answer every time. LTC holders would still have a defense to prosecution under 30.05 (f), but again it is a defense to prosecution, not non-applicability. "You can beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

I think it may be even a little worse than that. As Ruark wrote, it looks like we'd be adding back item (c) which was repealed in 2009, and using only the word "firearm." The defense to prosecution in item (f) is quite explicit in using the word "handgun" only. On the surface, I would take Schwertner's F13 to end up meaning, "substantially similar" issue aside, that a 30.05 posting would also then exclude every type of firearm that was not a handgun carried expressly under a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411. HB 1927 itself strikes the "shoulder or belt" requirement and logically changes it to just "a handgun...in a holster," so open carry would actually be improved, not hindered. But aren't we adding a restriction regarding rifles and shotguns that doesn't exist today?

And if anyone wants to find out more about these Texas Senate critters: https://senate.texas.gov/members.php. Schwertner describes himself as a physician, family man, business owner, and a life-long conservative. Admittedly his amendments weren't off-the-wall goofy like some of the failed Dems' offerings, but I can't say that "life-long conservative" would be the first thing that comes to mind with all of the seven amendments he pushed and got adopted.

LTC holders would still have a defense to prosecution under 30.05 (f), but again it is a defense to prosecution, not non-applicability. "You can beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

This has been discussed before, but the 46.15 provisions (carrying under LTC, carrying while "cop", etc). are ALSO defenses to prosecution. The reason is that the penal code doesn't define "non-applicability". The statutory language that invokes an EXCEPTION to a law is "it is an exception to the application of <this statute>", and that is not used in 46.15. Now the good news is that this new permitless carry basically removes the offenses under 46.02, instead of making them a "defense" as the 46.15 "non-applicability" did. "Taking the ride" is a strawman of long standing...I think it happened once in 25 years to a forum member...forget his handle. I'm more concerned about the "firearm" vice handgun being used in the language.

Also of note is in the new 46.03 off limits places...amusement parks, racetracks, hospitals the language provides an exception if the person was not personally given notice. I really wouldn't think a sign qualifies. While it's a bigger risk with a class A misdemeanor on the line, I think the small likelihood of discovery and for it to proceed to trial, along with this exception would make me more willing to take the risk.

[Ruark]

Cripes. This whole thing is going to get so complicated, with so many turns and twists and "if's" you'll need a college class to understand it clearly. The average lay person out there will be clueless.

Maybe we should just eliminate the LTC, let everybody carry who's eligible (i.e. non-felons, underage), have a list of no-carry places, official state signage, and leave it.

[powerboatr]

not to wrinkle the fritos, but
i was reading all the adopted, withdrawn and failed amendments , referenced by our great folks here
THANK YOU VERY MUCH

but i saw this and thought, how did miss this and Super happy it died. it has lawsuit all over it and then lets make up a new law based on race ??

[ELB]

not to wrinkle the fritos, but
i was reading all the adopted, withdrawn and failed amendments , referenced by our great folks here
THANK YOU VERY MUCH

but i saw this and thought, how did miss this and Super happy it died. it has lawsuit all over it and then lets make up a new law based on race ??

It was Senate Amendment F9 by Zafferini ("my" Senator ) and it failed. Not part of the bill. There were 27 amendments proposed in the Senate and only 8 were adopted.

[ELB]

...

... Schwertner describes himself as a physician, family man, business owner, and a life-long conservative. Admittedly his amendments weren't off-the-wall goofy like some of the failed Dems' offerings, but I can't say that "life-long conservative" would be the first thing that comes to mind with all of the seven amendments he pushed and got adopted.

I do not know Schwertner, didn't know his name before this bill, and I'm not happy with the amendments, but let me offer a possible mitigating circumstance for his actions:

Keep in mind this post from above and take note of the parts I underlined:

...
"Patrick told Dana Loesch, a radio host and former spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, that he needs the support of all 18 Senate Republicans to allow a vote on the bill.

When the legislation came over from the House last week, "I had maybe six in favor, about six against and six unsure," Patrick said. "We're now up to 12 votes, maybe 13. I'm still a few short, but I'm going to bring it to the floor. It's rare I do this. Usually when you don't have the votes, you don't bring a bill up that's going to lose, but this is an important issue.

"I'm optimistic and working to be sure we get those votes to be able to pass it out," he said."

I suspect those amendments were the price that Patrick had to pay to get the votes from the RINO senators who were not supporting the bill earlier (and there may be support for other bills in play as well). He had Schwertner, as the bill's sponsor in the Senate, propose the amendments because a) it provided cover for the RINOs by having a known conservative propose them, and b) I believe it is a legislative tradition that the sponsor gets the amendments he proposes to his own bill, even if others are opposed to them...because they want the same courtesy when they are ramrodding their bills. So Schwertner may have had to swallow his distaste and run the amendments through. This is part of the sausage making.

Now what is important is who the Senate sends to the joint conference committee with the House to sort out the differences. If five staunch bill supporters from each chamber are appointed, then they can clip out the less desirable parts, put more desirable parts back in, and come up with, we hope, a better bill. IIRC that bill does not go back to either chamber to be voted on, it becomes the final bill that goes to the Governor. The RINO senators can quietly tell their supporters "Hey, I tried, but the committee cut out it out."

I don't know that this is the case, but I think it is at least plausible, and to be hoped for.

[powerboatr]

not to wrinkle the fritos, but
i was reading all the adopted, withdrawn and failed amendments , referenced by our great folks here
THANK YOU VERY MUCH

but i saw this and thought, how did miss this and Super happy it died. it has lawsuit all over it and then lets make up a new law based on race ??

It was Senate Amendment F9 by Zafferini ("my" Senator ) and it failed. Not part of the bill. There were 27 amendments proposed in the Senate and only 8 were adopted.

yes i saw that, and had some intense thoughts about the senator. she is "different" lets say

[Papa_Tiger]

IIRC that bill does not go back to either chamber to be voted on, it becomes the final bill that goes to the Governor. The RINO senators can quietly tell their supporters "Hey, I tried, but the committee cut out it out."

I don't know that this is the case, but I think it is at least plausible, and to be hoped for.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/legis ... rocess.pdf

Page 6 and 7 starting with "Return of a Bill to the Originating Chamber"

Long and short:
House concurs with Senate changes, on to the governor.
House doesn't concur, conference committee hashes out differences. BOTH chambers must approve conference committee changes for it to go on to the governor, if not bill is dead.

[ELB]

...

Long and short:
House concurs with Senate changes, on to the governor.
House doesn't concur, conference committee hashes out differences. BOTH chambers must approve conference committee changes for it to go on to the governor, if not bill is dead.

Aw, I couldn't find that in a hurry, thanks for the link. Hopefully the RINOs will still vote for whatever comes out and they can still hide behind the committee.

[Flightmare]

IIRC that bill does not go back to either chamber to be voted on, it becomes the final bill that goes to the Governor. The RINO senators can quietly tell their supporters "Hey, I tried, but the committee cut out it out."

I don't know that this is the case, but I think it is at least plausible, and to be hoped for.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/legis ... rocess.pdf

Page 6 and 7 starting with "Return of a Bill to the Originating Chamber"

Long and short:
House concurs with Senate changes, on to the governor.
House doesn't concur, conference committee hashes out differences. BOTH chambers must approve conference committee changes for it to go on to the governor, if not bill is dead.

That is correct. Question will be on some of these amendments. If they are not found to be germane to the legislation, then the opposition can try to kill the bill on a point of order in the house. The house has different rules than the senate does. While I don't have an issue with a "free" online course offered by DPS, how does that relate to this bill. Schwertner himself was turning amendments away to keep this bill as small and simple as possible. At the very least, I suspect these amendments will cause a delay while the house attempts to resolve some procedural hurdles. Hopefully they can get over them. Many of these amendments should have either been stand alone legislation, or added onto another bill that was more closely related.

[chamberc]

...

Long and short:
House concurs with Senate changes, on to the governor.
House doesn't concur, conference committee hashes out differences. BOTH chambers must approve conference committee changes for it to go on to the governor, if not bill is dead.

Aw, I couldn't find that in a hurry, thanks for the link. Hopefully the RINOs will still vote for whatever comes out and they can still hide behind the committee.

If it doesn't get out of conference before the session ends, it's also dead. There won't be a special session for this bill.