HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[stevie_d_64]

Minor spin???

http://www.click2houston.com/news/texas ... s/32431426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RoyGBiv]

Looks to me that Amendment 9 (local preemption in cities with >750,000) was adopted into Amendment 8, but Amendment 8 was tabled and did not pass. The only Amendment to HB 910 that passed was Amendment 18, making a 30.06 violation a Class C unless "after entering the property, the license holder received notice..... and failed to depart".

Unless I'm mistaken, the Senate (SB 17) version of the Bill made it through the House with only this one Amendment.

SB 17 passed the Senate on 17-March and the House received it from the Senate on 18-March.
On 26-March the House considered and "Reported Favorably" SB 17 as a Committee Substitute for HB 910.
Therefore, as of 26-March, SB 17 = HB 910

Reported favorably as substituted 03/26/2015
Committee substitute considered in committee 03/26/2015

Since SB 17 and HB 910 were "identical", only House Amendment 18 would need to be resolved/approved by the Senate.

[jmra]

Looks to me that Amendment 9 (local preemption in cities with >750,000) was adopted into Amendment 8, but Amendment 8 was tabled and did not pass. The only Amendment to HB 910 that passed was Amendment 18, making a 30.06 violation a Class C unless "after entering the property, the license holder received notice..... and failed to depart".

Unless I'm mistaken, the Senate (SB 17) version of the Bill made it through the House with only this one Amendment.

SB 17 passed the Senate on 17-March and the House received it from the Senate on 18-March.
On 26-March the House considered and "Reported Favorably" SB 17 as a Committee Substitute for HB 910.
Therefore, as of 26-March, SB 17 = HB 910

Reported favorably as substituted 03/26/2015
Committee substitute considered in committee 03/26/2015

Since SB 17 and HB 910 were "identical", only House Amendment 18 would need to be resolved/approved by the Senate.

I think the only other amendment that passed was a word change (nursing home was changed to nursing facility). I can't see the senate having an issue with the penalty reduction. Shouldn't be an issue getting this to the governors desk.

[jmra]

CJD,
When the representative introduced the amendment (I watched it live), it was to prevent a Class A misdemeanor placed against a person who accidentally entered an otherwise posted 30.06 establishment, thus causing them to lose their CHL for an inadvertent mistake (missing/walking past the 30.06 sign). Taken in this context, it would make sense that you would have to receive notice per Subsection (b) and failed to depart after entering the property to be a Class A. However, if you observe and blantantly ignore a 30.06 sign, you would probably be charged with a Class A, even though I suppose they would have to prove it??

However, the amendment struck the following from 30.06:

(2)(B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart

Read as a whole:

(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
(2) received notice that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

The default violation would be a Class C and could be upgraded to a Class A as applicable.

But where does it say anything about "accidentally"? As I've pointed out, one receives notice from a proper sign being posted, regardless of whether you see it. I understand the amendment's intent, I'm just wondering whether it is actually accomplished.

I believe ELB has provided the best answer for that though, put in bold for emphasis:

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

This is based off the assumption that "miss enter the property" or "don't see the notice" provide exemptions for the Class A, but I don't see this anywhere in the code.

The Class C is the new penalty while exceptions are given for Class A... Seems to me they have to prove you should get a Class A, not the other way around.

I guess you're right in that, at a minimum, it seems to increase the burden of proof.

The way I see this being enforced is you only get charged with Class A if you are an idiot (read OCT member) and refuse to leave once you've been outed. The Class C becomes a slam dunk where the Class A requires more work by a government employee.

[treadlightly]

The concern over populous cities is clinically interesting.

"Urbane" means sophisticated, self-assured through wide social experience.

Oddly, "urban" seems to imply dull judgement limited to the law of the jungle, as opposed to how us sub-urbane hicks think out here in the suburbs of nowhere, where seldom is seen an urbane gunslinger lacking the necessary conflict resolution skills to keep himself out of the big house.

I'm sure I'm missing something. I'm also happy to be an happily armed hayseed, safe from the violent risks of savoir-faire.

And now for breakfast. Pass that kettle of grits, Ma, just as soon as I tuck a shop towel into my shirt. Don't want to spill anything on Pappy's old forty-five, and y'all come visit. The neighbors brought plenty of vittles.

[The Annoyed Man]

Amendment number 9 to HB 910 that was approved says any city over 750000 population can regulate open carry ...
That covers Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio .. The way I read it .. Anyone see it different..?

That amendment was tabled and not added to the bill.

[Owens]

I see that HB910 is up for third vote Monday.

[BlueMerle]

I see that HB910 is up for third vote Monday.

Really? I thought it was done yesterday, and will now go to the Senate.

[The Annoyed Man]

Scenario: You walk into a store that has 30.06 posted but for whatever reason you didn't see it. First of all if you are concealed carrying what are the odds someone will know. If you're open carrying and someone tells you that it's not allowed you just leave. The only way it would be a problem is if you don't leave and they call the police, or the police were in the store and saw you. If you leave and they call the police you'll more than likely be long gone by the time they get there. The last time I checked store owners can't issue tickets. I seriously doubt this is going to be a common occurrence. I've never been asked if I was carrying while in any business. I usually frequent the same businesses so know if they're posted or not. If it's a place I've never been before I make sure to look. I feel this amendment basically protects the CHL from being arrested and losing their license due to inadvertent or accidentally entering a posted premises.

The problem I see is that when you walk past a 30.06 sign you failed to see, you have still been presented with effective notice. You just didn't recognize it. You can lead a horse to a 30.06 sign, but you can't assume that makes him disarm, I guess.

As far as tickets, citations, or charges filed, I'm pretty sure you don't have to remain at the scene of the crime. Burgle and run, and a burgler can still get charged, tried, and convicted.

What you're not including in your mix is that 30.06 doesn't have to be posted at the entrances. The current relevant wording of 30.06 says:

• (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:
  
  • (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
    
    (2) received notice that:
    
    • (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
      
      (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.
  (b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
  
  (c) In this section:
  
  • (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
    
    (2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
    
    (3) "Written communication" means:
    
    • (A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
      
      (B) a sign posted on the property that:
      
      • (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
        
        (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
        
        (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

"Entrance" is not part of the language of the law.......only that it be displayed in a "conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public". That means that if it is conspicuously posted on the inside rear wall of the establishment, such that you can't see it until after you've entered, you're still in violation, even though you did not receive notice until after you entered.

Personally, I would want 30.06/30.07 to be amended to specify that compliant signage must be posted at ALL entrances without exception (this would necessarily include freight doors on loading docks, etc.). Because as long as there remains a reasonable possibility that someone could enter in good faith without having to actually walk past a sign, then that person is placed into a legal jeopardy which he has no way of discerning so as to avoid it. You can't comply with something that you don't know exists, and the blanket response that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" does not apply in this case. If a city creates a speed trap by lowering the speed limit from 45 mph to 25 mph along a given stretch of road, but the city fails to place a sign at the point where the reduction occurs, notifying drivers that the speed limit has been reduced at that point, then drivers who unknowingly violate that zone and are ticketed for it will beat that ticket all day long and twice on Sundays. It is a simple principle to understand, and it is beyond me why that kind of language was not written into 30.06 from the beginning.

[ELB]

Minor spin???

http://www.click2houston.com/news/texas ... s/32431426" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spin? Actually looks like a pretty accurate and straightforward article? for once.

[ELB]

....

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

It is always gratifying when one's peers on the Forum quote my utterances as an example to look to;

It is bit less gratifying when I actually read my quoted words and realize I fat-fingered some errors into it. e.g. "miss enter" - shades of GW (although I always though misunderestimated was pretty cool, whether he actually said it or not).

Ahem. Let me try this again.

Under current 30.06, you are strictly liable if you are found carrying a concealed handgun on private property that is correctly posted with a sign that meets the statutory requirements. No one has to prove you saw the sign. Presence on property +CHL gun + legal sign + cops arrest you for it = BOOM. Class A misdemeanor, year in jail, loss of license. Done. (note that this all presumes the police get involved and arrest you).

Under the amendment, under the same circumstances, you are still strictly liable, but the penalty is significantly lowered -- to Class C, $200 fine, do not go to jail. The police would have to arrest you immediately.

Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

This is a big difference, and makes a poorly constructed law much better. I agree the strict liability part is still there, that has not changed, but the penalty for it has been significantly reduced, and now other elements have to be proved to increase it. The law has not been improved to perfection, but it mo' bettah!

[Ruark]

Grisham has issued a press release on the oct Facebook page. That guy is something else. Of course they take credit for this big victory on this issue which they originally declared they would fight against and then did everything they could to sabotage.

It's sickening.

Yeah, and they're praising Stickland for "fighting hard" for Texas gun rights, encouraging people to like his Facebook page and send him thank you messages, etc. He's a huge hero at OCT now. Incredible.

[stevie_d_64]

Looks to me that Amendment 9 (local preemption in cities with >750,000) was adopted into Amendment 8, but Amendment 8 was tabled and did not pass. The only Amendment to HB 910 that passed was Amendment 18, making a 30.06 violation a Class C unless "after entering the property, the license holder received notice..... and failed to depart".

Unless I'm mistaken, the Senate (SB 17) version of the Bill made it through the House with only this one Amendment.

SB 17 passed the Senate on 17-March and the House received it from the Senate on 18-March.
On 26-March the House considered and "Reported Favorably" SB 17 as a Committee Substitute for HB 910.
Therefore, as of 26-March, SB 17 = HB 910

Reported favorably as substituted 03/26/2015
Committee substitute considered in committee 03/26/2015

Since SB 17 and HB 910 were "identical", only House Amendment 18 would need to be resolved/approved by the Senate.

I have to go back and make sure, I could swear amendment #9 was tabled...I stand to be corrected...

[mojo84]

Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

[CJD]

Now, if AFTER you are already on the property and somehow notice is brought to you that it legally designated off limits for licensed carry -- because someone with proper authority told you, or summoned the police and they told you (after choosing not to arrest you immediately), or you finally saw the sign you missed the first time, AND you refused to leave -- AND that could be shown a trial -- THEN you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

There is no requirement that you actually see the sign. As long as the sign is posted, you have received effective notice.