HB 1927 on the Senate floor now

[oljames3]

If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...

I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I hope that you're correct. However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet. Has this concept of when someone is or not carrying "under the authority of their LTC" been discussed on this board before? I'd be curious to see what opinions others have offered and whether there's any broad consensus on this idea.

Yes, the concept of carrying "under the authority of their LTC" has been discussed here before. However, that is just an interesting thought exercise. Until a case hinging on this concept is tried in court and that decision is appealed, we will not know what carrying "under the authority of their LTC" means. It is the appellate court decisions that become case law. After the governor signs the bill, I'll have a talk with my lawyer.

[RoyGBiv]

It appears to have passed completely!
Now on to the governor’s desk.

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927

Bueno.

[ScottDLS]

If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...

I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I hope that you're correct. However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet. Has this concept of when someone is or not carrying "under the authority of their LTC" been discussed on this board before? I'd be curious to see what opinions others have offered and whether there's any broad consensus on this idea.

However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet.

Then why ask (a stranger or strangers) on the Internet? Sorry, just joking with you. If you do a search of this Board you'll find numerous discussions about the topic, usually with the same people (like me) weighing in from different angles. However, addressing the new unlicensed carry, not so much, because it didn't exist until today.

My quick justification for saying that a license holder may carry past a 30.06/7 if they have some other authority is:

There are numerous police officers who also have a LTC. They don't need the LTC to carry because they are Peace Officers. Is it reasonable to only a police officer WITHOUT a LTC may carry past a 30.06/7 sign (particularly a 30.07 sign if in uniform)? No it isn't IMO.

[ScottDLS]

If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...

I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I hope that you're correct. However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet. Has this concept of when someone is or not carrying "under the authority of their LTC" been discussed on this board before? I'd be curious to see what opinions others have offered and whether there's any broad consensus on this idea.

Yes, the concept of carrying "under the authority of their LTC" has been discussed here before. However, that is just an interesting thought exercise. Until a case hinging on this concept is tried in court and that decision is appealed, we will not know what carrying "under the authority of their LTC" means. It is the appellate court decisions that become case law. After the governor signs the bill, I'll have a talk with my lawyer.

So in your opinion, is a Texas Peace Officer who happens to have a LTC violating the law by passing a 30.06/7 sign?

Or how about this question when the new law is in effect. You walk up to a location with a 30.06/7 sign, but no 30.05 sign and not prohibited under 46.03. You go in, presumably carrying concealed. You somehow are discovered carrying and asked to leave. You leave. They then call the police to cite you for 30.06 violation. The officer arrives and cites you under 30.06. You choose to fight the $200 ticket in municipal or JP court. Your lawyer (who you are paying $200/hr to beat a $200 ticket) argues to the judge that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were carrying under the authority of your LTC. You didn't need its authority to carry, and even if you did, you would have had to be carrying the license on your person at the time. Presumably you weren't or it can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt that you were. If I see 30.06/7 and no 30.05, I'm walking past it concealed and will not be worried in the least.

[ScottDLS]

If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...

I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.

So, please correct me if I’m wrong…..I just want to make sure I understand the "new" 30.05.

1. Do I understand correctly that 30.05 ONLY applies to unlicensed carry, while 30.06 & 30.07 will continue to apply only to licensed carry?

2. Do I also understand correctly that absent a 30.05 sign, a licensed person can still carry past a 30.06 or 30.07 sign under the authority of Constitutional Carry?

3. Am I asking the right questions?

1. I am going to say yes because the defense to 30.05 for having a handgun AND LTC remains as it previously was.

2. Again my argument is yes, because you don't need a LTC to carry a handgun anymore. Just because you happen to have one doesn't mean you need its authority to carry. Again, it makes no sense that someone that can legally carry without LTC anyway, like a Peace Officer, would become prohibited because they happen to have one. What if you had an Arizona license? How would anyone even know that you had a license? Finally in order to legally carry under the authority of your LTC, it (LTC) must be on your person. Leave it in the car.

3. In my opinion, yes. And in my opinion, my answers are correct .

But as in all things LTC, beware the "ride". Or the cop who is having a bad day and the Soros backed DA...

[NotRPB]

2 parts i don't much like
1)
Courts will have to decide what "substantially similar"means
30.05
Sign Description:
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"
In both English and Spanish in contrasting block letters at least 1 inch in height
2)
Just like more signs went up after 30.07 passed, I expect that I'll see a 30.05 sign preventing carrying my Keltec folding carbine past the 30.06/30.07/30.05 signs at the hospitals clinics & Doctor's offices in my laptop case like I have for years now... guess it's time to buy a Taser and more pepper sprays & other non-signaged "defense tools"

[srothstein]

Just like more signs went up after 30.07 passed, I expect that I'll see a 30.05 sign preventing carrying my Keltec folding carbine past the 30.06/30.07/30.05 signs at the hospitals clinics & Doctor's offices in my laptop case like I have for years now... guess it's time to buy a Taser and more pepper sprays & other non-signaged "defense tools"

This is the interesting problem for me. I have ignored 30.06 and 30.07 signs in the past (not often because if they did not want me I did not want to go there but places like hospitals I had no choice) because they only applied if I was carrying under the authority of my LTC. As a retired peace officer, I was not carrying under the authority of my LTC. In several discussions with other former officers, I have pointed out that the exception to 30.05 only applies to active peace officers, not retirees. So, having my LTC gave me the ability to carry in one type of place that my retired peace officer ID did not. So far, I have yet to meet an officer who disagrees with me once I point this out in the law. I agree that if they post just 30.06/07 you can ignore it since you do not need a license to carry there. If they post just 30.05, you can ignore it because you have a license. But if they post all three, about the only people who can carry there are active peace officers, active duty military, and travelers (yes, there is still that exception in the law last time I looked). Retired officers, LTCs, and unlicensed carriers would all be covered then.

[Beiruty]

Be happy, 2 years from now, Legal Bench-Komandos would propose "clean ups" bills for the new constitutional carry.

[ScottDLS]

Just like more signs went up after 30.07 passed, I expect that I'll see a 30.05 sign preventing carrying my Keltec folding carbine past the 30.06/30.07/30.05 signs at the hospitals clinics & Doctor's offices in my laptop case like I have for years now... guess it's time to buy a Taser and more pepper sprays & other non-signaged "defense tools"

This is the interesting problem for me. I have ignored 30.06 and 30.07 signs in the past (not often because if they did not want me I did not want to go there but places like hospitals I had no choice) because they only applied if I was carrying under the authority of my LTC. As a retired peace officer, I was not carrying under the authority of my LTC. In several discussions with other former officers, I have pointed out that the exception to 30.05 only applies to active peace officers, not retirees. So, having my LTC gave me the ability to carry in one type of place that my retired peace officer ID did not. So far, I have yet to meet an officer who disagrees with me once I point this out in the law. I agree that if they post just 30.06/07 you can ignore it since you do not need a license to carry there. If they post just 30.05, you can ignore it because you have a license. But if they post all three, about the only people who can carry there are active peace officers, active duty military, and travelers (yes, there is still that exception in the law last time I looked). Retired officers, LTCs, and unlicensed carriers would all be covered then.

And voluntary emergency response personnel? Defense to 30.05 if carrying a handgun and HAVE a LTC. Defense to 30.06/7 provided for VERP's?

[XnTx]

I've heard no one mention LOSING the ability to purchase a firearm using their TX LTC to bypass the NICS background check. So with passage of constitutional carry and the elimination of the LTC system we are now subject to mandatory NICS background checks on new purchases. What is there to stop CUJ from imposing additional restrictions on these checks like a waiting period or simply slow walking checks? Seems to me like we are ignorantly giving away more than we are getting with constitutional carry.

[Papa_Tiger]

I've heard no one mention LOSING the ability to purchase a firearm using their TX LTC to bypass the NICS background check. So with passage of constitutional carry and the elimination of the LTC system we are now subject to mandatory NICS background checks on new purchases. What is there to stop CUJ from imposing additional restrictions on these checks like a waiting period or simply slow walking checks? Seems to me like we are ignorantly giving away more than we are getting with constitutional carry.

The LTC program is not going away with the passage of HB 1927.

[oljames3]

I've heard no one mention LOSING the ability to purchase a firearm using their TX LTC to bypass the NICS background check. So with passage of constitutional carry and the elimination of the LTC system we are now subject to mandatory NICS background checks on new purchases. What is there to stop CUJ from imposing additional restrictions on these checks like a waiting period or simply slow walking checks? Seems to me like we are ignorantly giving away more than we are getting with constitutional carry.

HB1927 did not eliminate the LTC program.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've heard no one mention LOSING the ability to purchase a firearm using their TX LTC to bypass the NICS background check. So with passage of constitutional carry and the elimination of the LTC system we are now subject to mandatory NICS background checks on new purchases. What is there to stop CUJ from imposing additional restrictions on these checks like a waiting period or simply slow walking checks? Seems to me like we are ignorantly giving away more than we are getting with constitutional carry.

And I’ll repeat for additional emphasis, Constitutional Carry is NOT doing away with licensing. It is only doing away with the licensing REQUIREMENT. You’ll still be able to keep/renew your license if you want to, and you’ll still have the same privileges/permissions that you had before, under the authority of that license—INCLUDING the streamlined purchasing privileges.

[oljames3]

If I'm reading this correctly, 30.06 and 30.07 signs do not apply to unlicensed carry. Is that right? That means that unlicensed Texas will be able to carry in tens of thousands of locations that are currently off-limits to license holders due to 30.06 and 30.07 signs. That seems kind of backwards...

I mentioned above that 30.06/30.07 only apply to carry "under the authority of your LTC". If a location (after 9/1) doesn't post a 30.05, but for some reason only a 30.06/7 then you could carry past the signs just like an unlicensed carrier. Reason being you don't need the authority of your LTC to carry, so therefore you're not (carrying under its authority). If this were not the case then currently, a peace officer who happened to have a LTC couldn't carry past a sign either. If one was not convinced by that, one could leave their LTC in the car, as technically you can't carry (under LTC authority) if you are not also carrying the LTC itself.

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I hope that you're correct. However, I'm hesitant to take legal advice from a stranger on the Internet. Has this concept of when someone is or not carrying "under the authority of their LTC" been discussed on this board before? I'd be curious to see what opinions others have offered and whether there's any broad consensus on this idea.

Yes, the concept of carrying "under the authority of their LTC" has been discussed here before. However, that is just an interesting thought exercise. Until a case hinging on this concept is tried in court and that decision is appealed, we will not know what carrying "under the authority of their LTC" means. It is the appellate court decisions that become case law. After the governor signs the bill, I'll have a talk with my lawyer.

So in your opinion, is a Texas Peace Officer who happens to have a LTC violating the law by passing a 30.06/7 sign?

Or how about this question when the new law is in effect. You walk up to a location with a 30.06/7 sign, but no 30.05 sign and not prohibited under 46.03. You go in, presumably carrying concealed. You somehow are discovered carrying and asked to leave. You leave. They then call the police to cite you for 30.06 violation. The officer arrives and cites you under 30.06. You choose to fight the $200 ticket in municipal or JP court. Your lawyer (who you are paying $200/hr to beat a $200 ticket) argues to the judge that the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were carrying under the authority of your LTC. You didn't need its authority to carry, and even if you did, you would have had to be carrying the license on your person at the time. Presumably you weren't or it can't be established beyond a reasonable doubt that you were. If I see 30.06/7 and no 30.05, I'm walking past it concealed and will not be worried in the least.

Lawyer.

[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.

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.

Just like churches, it was legal to carry in open meetings before....as long as did not receive notice under 30.06/30.07. This was one of the few exceptions carved out with SB 273 (fines for signs) from the 84th legislature. Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but it sounds like the signs might hold no more legal weight, but governments would not be penalized for posting them at open meetings. Which would definitely lead to some confusion. I'd welcome some smarter legal minds to weigh in on this.