HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

[Jim Beaux]

Lt Gov Patrick's announcement:

https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2021/05/21/ ... agreement/

Patrick just had to throw in his crappola about how innocent they were of accusations of poison pills. Politicians make me sick to my stomach. What actually happened is they got inundated by those of us calling and emailing explaining that our vote for them depended on this passing and they decided that poison pill was a bad idea after all. Had Texans not responded in force, that bill would be dead. JMHO

Before you start making authoritative statements, you should see what is in the final bill. There may still be things in it that you would have considered a "poison pill" but are part of the compromises made when crafting law.

ETA: There is lots of evidence that this was worked on very hard by many members in both chambers INCLUDING the Lieutenant Governor.

1) It proceeded through the house rapidly
2) When it got to the Senate, a SPECIAL COMMITTEE, just for this bill was set up and staffed with many pro-2A Senators by Lt. Gov. Patrick.
3) The committee met quickly and voted out the House version of the bill without modifications.
4) The Senate acted quickly once it left the committee and allowed/voted on minimal amendments that helped to secure the votes of the Senators required to pass it including Senator Nelson.
5) While the House didn't concur with the amendments added in the Senate, both chambers acted quickly to appoint overall favorable members to the conference committees with LOTS of time to spare in the session.
6) Agreement between chambers was reached with 9 days left in the session. That is faster than both Open and Campus Carry in 2015.

All of the doom and gloom poison pill prognosticators need to watch a few legislative sessions before they start proclaiming themselves experts on the political process in Texas.

I dont have to be an authority on birds to know what just dropped on my shoulder.

You cant blast us for our skepticism and you too are assuming, as we all are, how this will play out. In politics there is no honesty and never will. Experience dictates that we must always distrust the political industry. I believe what I see, not what I hear.

You and I are on the same team and I hope you are 100% correct.

[carlson1]

Is there a place where we can read the amendments or does anyone know what they are?

[Papa_Tiger]

Is there a place where we can read the amendments or does anyone know what they are?

When they are available, they can be found here:

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Te ... ill=HB1927

The latest version is the one that the Senate passed, not the conference committee report. The Conference Committee report has been distributed in the House and the Senate and I believe will be available after they have voted on it.

[03Lightningrocks]

[Flightmare]

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/c ... 210523.htm
Under Items eligible for consideration by the house;

Conference Committee Reports:

ELIGIBLE AT 8:00 PM MAY 23, 2021:

HB 1927 Schaefer / White / Hefner / Guillen / Canales / et al.

Relating to provisions governing the carrying of a firearm by a person who is 21 years of age or older and not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law from possessing the firearm and to other provisions related to the carrying, possessing, transporting, or storing of a firearm or other weapon; creating criminal offenses.

[Flightmare]

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/87ccrs/hb1927.pdf

Committee report is available.

[Papa_Tiger]

https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/87ccrs/hb1927.pdf

Committee report is available.

It looks like all of the Senate amendments made it through unchanged with the notable exceptions of:
Expungement added back in and cleaned up to only apply to violations of 46.02 as it was prior to September 1, 2021.

Non-applicability re-worked/worded to get the intent of the original "oops, I made a mistake" language added by Schaefer during the House Floor debate, but only applicable to 46.03 locations and signs (new).
- Defense to prosecution added if you receive personal notice that firearms are prohibited and promptly depart
- Defense DOES NOT apply if each entrance to the property/premises was posted with the defined 46.03 sign or you knew that you were not supposed to carry there

Overall, this looks like there was a decent amount of discussion on the "Prohibited Places (46.03)" notification, warning and defense to prosecution. None of the things that were added in the Senate were a poison pill and the things that were important to the House that were stripped out were added back in some form.

[G.A. Heath]

My concerns with the committee report regard section 30.05 creating a potential "grey area" that some less than honest law enforcement agencies and prosecutors may try to exploit (Good thing we don't have any of those in Texas! ) should this become law. The 30.05(c) section/sign mentions/specifies firearms and section 30.05(f) specifies handguns.
Essentially the case could, and likely will, be made that 30.05 applies to all firearms, including handguns carried under an LTC. Will it hold up in court? Depends on the appellate judges, defendant(s), and the quality of the attorneys on both sides.
Even with this concern I like what I see so far in my glancing over the bill.

[denwego]

My concerns with the committee report regard section 30.05 creating a potential "grey area" that some less than honest law enforcement agencies and prosecutors may try to exploit (Good thing we don't have any of those in Texas! ) should this become law. The 30.05(c) section/sign mentions/specifies firearms and section 30.05(f) specifies handguns.
Essentially the case could, and likely will, be made that 30.05 applies to all firearms, including handguns carried under an LTC. Will it hold up in court? Depends on the appellate judges, defendant(s), and the quality of the attorneys on both sides.
Even with this concern I like what I see so far in my glancing over the bill.

Nothing will change with folks who have a LTC in regards to 30.05/30.06/30.07, with the exception that the language was changed to remove references to "belt or shoulder" holster. The text for 30.05(f) from the committee report is still:

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a holster.

So the same defense still applies for the current law. The added language to 30.05 in regards to permitless carry is actually a nice improvement, because right now if you are carrying a pocket knife and someone puts up a generic "no weapons" sign, it's a Class A misdemeanor, and with HB1927 all firearms/weapons-based trespass prohibitions are dropped down to a Class C $200 fine unless you're told personally to leave and you stick around for some reason. Very, very nice quality of life improvement.

[K.Mooneyham]

Does this bill really change anything in regards to those who have their LTC? Or will that remain business as usual?

[Papa_Tiger]

Does this bill really change anything in regards to those who have their LTC? Or will that remain business as usual?

Based on my analysis, we can no longer be prevented from carrying in government meetings covered by the open meetings act and we get the "belt and shoulder" restriction removed from our holster choices.

[Flightmare]

Does this bill really change anything in regards to those who have their LTC? Or will that remain business as usual?

Based on my analysis, we can no longer be prevented from carrying in government meetings covered by the open meetings act and we get the "belt and shoulder" restriction removed from our holster choices.

While I see the "belt or shoulder" language removed, I do see this on page 24.

( 14) in the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held, if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code, and if the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.

[Papa_Tiger]

Does this bill really change anything in regards to those who have their LTC? Or will that remain business as usual?

Based on my analysis, we can no longer be prevented from carrying in government meetings covered by the open meetings act and we get the "belt and shoulder" restriction removed from our holster choices.

While I see the "belt or shoulder" language removed, I do see this on page 24.

( 14) in the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held, if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code, and if the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.

Gotta read a bit further in the bill:

Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsections (b), (j), and (1) and adding Subsections (m), (n), (o), (p), and (q) to read as follows: (b) Sections 46.02, 46.03(a)(14), and 46.04(a-1) 21 do not apply to a person who:
...
(6) is carrying:
(A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and
(B) a handgun:
( i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a [shoulder or belt] holster;

Current law says:

(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, in the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held and if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code, and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.
...
(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

[TrueFlog]

Sections 46.03(a) (7), (11), and (13) do not apply

to license holders, and (7) is the prohibition against carrying in a 51% establishment. Does that mean that 51% bars will be removed from the list of off-limits places?

[Papa_Tiger]

Sections 46.03(a) (7), (11), and (13) do not apply

to license holders, and (7) is the prohibition against carrying in a 51% establishment. Does that mean that 51% bars will be removed from the list of off-limits places?

No. If they properly post 30.06/7 or the 51% sign it is still an off-limits location:

(p) Sections 46.03(a) (7), (11), and (13) do not apply if the actor:
(1) carries a handgun on the premises or other property, as applicable;
(2) holds a license to carry a handgun issued under Sub chapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code; and
(3) was not given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30. 07 of this code or Section 411. 204, Government Code, as applicable.

Section 411.204 Government Code is the 51% sign.