TX: 87R 2021 Session SB540 Con Carry

[ELB]

Senators Spring and Buckingham filed what appears to be a constitutional carry-like bill. I had a nice long detailed post on it and the forum ate it by kicking me off after a couple hours because I didn't notice that I was using "http://" and not "https://" which really torques me off.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/b ... navpanes=0

Anyway, here is a summary of what I remember:

It basically legalizes carrying a handgun in public without needing a license as long as you are 21 or over and not a prohibited person. It has all the same restrictions and permissions as if you had a license, but you don't need the license. As far as I can tell it does not change level of punishments for violations (e.g. felony, misdemeanor), nor does it change/expand/contract the locations where carry is legal.

For example, no carry in a 51% location at all, but concealed (not open) carry on public university campus is legal (but the "few" areas that are off limits per univ rules must be observed).

Carry requirements same, i.e. concealed or belt/shoulder holster

You have a defense to prosecution under 30.05 Criminal Trespass if the basis for denying entry is carrying a handgun.

For private property you have a defense to prosecution if you are notified by oral communication that you can't carry there and you promptly leave.

Governmental entities cannot forbid carry by persons with a handgun unless the location is already statutorily off limits. This is an exception to prosecution.

There's a new sign! The 30.08 sign! for the "Unlicensed Holder" trespass section. Sign parallels language and lettering size requirements for 30.06/30.07 signs except that it says "Unlicensed Holder" which makes me giggle.

All the defenses to prosecution for owners/tenants/guests of condos/apartment complexes apply to unlicensed carriers as well.

It does not do away with the current licensing scheme, so you can still get a regular LTC, which would be handy for going to other states that recognize Texas licenses.

[srothstein]

There's a new sign! The 30.08 sign! for the "Unlicensed Holder" trespass section. Sign parallels language and lettering size requirements for 30.06/30.07 signs except that it says "Unlicensed Holder" which makes me giggle.

It does not do away with the current licensing scheme, so you can still get a regular LTC, which would be handy for going to other states that recognize Texas licenses.

I can see this setting up some interesting problems. If I have a license, I only need to look for 2 signs, but they do not apply to someone carrying without a license. And if someone only posts 30.08, I can do what I want there.

How many signs can be required before we get successful push back from the business community and what will be the end result of that pushback? Texas has been a very business friendly and property owner rights friendly state for much longer than it has been a second amendment friendly citizen carrying state. Our penal code section on unlawfully carrying can be traced back to the reconstruction era.

[chasfm11]

There's a new sign! The 30.08 sign! for the "Unlicensed Holder" trespass section. Sign parallels language and lettering size requirements for 30.06/30.07 signs except that it says "Unlicensed Holder" which makes me giggle.

It does not do away with the current licensing scheme, so you can still get a regular LTC, which would be handy for going to other states that recognize Texas licenses.

I can see this setting up some interesting problems. If I have a license, I only need to look for 2 signs, but they do not apply to someone carrying without a license. And if someone only posts 30.08, I can do what I want there.

How many signs can be required before we get successful push back from the business community and what will be the end result of that pushback? Texas has been a very business friendly and property owner rights friendly state for much longer than it has been a second amendment friendly citizen carrying state. Our penal code section on unlawfully carrying can be traced back to the reconstruction era.

No signs are required. In fact, no signs are preferred. In Pennsylvania, no signs are allowed. In Texas, you, as a business owner, get to decide which portions of your customer base you want to reject and just need to tell them through visible signs. If you end up covering the front of your store with them, it is on you. For me, the 06,07,08 signs seem to make more sense than the TABC "Unlicensed carry" sign which is also required. If store owners push back, let's tell TABC that they need to be out of the gun business and to stick with alcohol.

[srothstein]

I can see this setting up some interesting problems. If I have a license, I only need to look for 2 signs, but they do not apply to someone carrying without a license. And if someone only posts 30.08, I can do what I want there.

How many signs can be required before we get successful push back from the business community and what will be the end result of that pushback? Texas has been a very business friendly and property owner rights friendly state for much longer than it has been a second amendment friendly citizen carrying state. Our penal code section on unlawfully carrying can be traced back to the reconstruction era.

No signs are required. In fact, no signs are preferred. In Pennsylvania, no signs are allowed. In Texas, you, as a business owner, get to decide which portions of your customer base you want to reject and just need to tell them through visible signs. If you end up covering the front of your store with them, it is on you. For me, the 06,07,08 signs seem to make more sense than the TABC "Unlicensed carry" sign which is also required. If store owners push back, let's tell TABC that they need to be out of the gun business and to stick with alcohol.

While I agree that TABC should have no say in firearms allowed in a business at all and no law should reference what is going on at any location in reference to whether guns are allowed or not, I disagree on the no signs concept. As a business or property owner, I have the full right to say what I allow on my property, whether I base that decision on guns or clothing (no "gang" attire for example), on race, religion or any other "protected" class (I disagree with our government's authority or propriety in stopping me from discriminating on my property), or on something stupid such as no left handed red heads. If I want to exclude a portion of my potential customer base, I should have that right and ability. If I choose the wrong group to exclude, I end up going out of business, which is just and deserved IMO.

But, the best way to communicate those desires is by posting a sign. Texas law does not require anyone to post these criminal trespass signs at any business. That is always the option of the owner. But we have a unique advantage in Texas in that the law is specifying specific signs to be posted if you want to exclude certain groups from your business. This prevents businesses from posting small inconspicuous generic signs that could be misinterpreted, like a pistol in a red circle with a slash, and being able to file criminal trespass charges against gun owners. This is a good thing, IMO.

So, maybe I worded my questions wrong when I said required. My question can be restated as how many of these types of signs can we specify that must be posted if a business owner wants to ban people from carrying a gun in a store before the business community starts pushing back and successfully gets the law changed to allowing those nondescript and inconspicuous signs?

[RoyGBiv]

If I had to choose... I'd rather have licensees be able to carry everywhere (no 46.03 or 30.06/07) than be able to carry without a license.

Best of both worlds? No license required AND 46.03/30.06/07 do not apply to licensed carry.

[oohrah]

My primary concern is that if this passes, you will have a lot of people carrying who don't know the law, don't even know there are laws, and will walk around blissfully ignorant, eventually exposing themselves tot he public as ignorant, and screwing it up for all us who do know the law.

[ELB]

My primary concern is that if this passes, you will have a lot of people carrying who don't know the law, don't even know there are laws, and will walk around blissfully ignorant, eventually exposing themselves tot he public as ignorant, and screwing it up for all us who do know the law.

Certainly possible, but this is true for any liberty.

[RoyGBiv]

My primary concern is that if this passes, you will have a lot of people carrying who don't know the law, don't even know there are laws, and will walk around blissfully ignorant, eventually exposing themselves tot he public as ignorant, and screwing it up for all us who do know the law.

Certainly possible, but this is true for any liberty.

Exactly!
You don't even have to pass First Grade English to enjoy the benefits of 1A, as the MSM proves every day.

[Teamless]

My primary concern is that if this passes, you will have a lot of people carrying who don't know the law, don't even know there are laws, and will walk around blissfully ignorant, eventually exposing themselves tot he public as ignorant, and screwing it up for all us who do know the law.

Agreed - But..

Same has been said about
concealed carry - there will be blood in the streets
Open carry - there will be blood in the streets
Campus carry - there will be blood in the quad
Constitutional carry - there will be blood in the streets

Even though many other states have implemented all of the above - has anyone had the blood in the streets? (As they left would describe it anyway)?

Driving a car - some are licensed (but can’t!)
Licensing - doesn’t prevent idiots from doing dumb things
Lack of licensing doesn’t always make things worse

If it is the the Bill of Rights - let the chips fall where they may - without exceptions or restrictions
If Darwin wins (or others lose as some are just idiots)

That’s no difference to many other things in our society (drugs, DUI, etc)

[srothstein]

If it is the the Bill of Rights - let the chips fall where they may - without exceptions or restrictions
If Darwin wins (or others lose as some are just idiots)

Might I suggest one small change in your philosophy? If, instead of looking for it in the Bill of Rights, you look at the delineated powers. If it is not listed that as something they can regulate, let the chips fall where they may.

[03Lightningrocks]

One of the arguments against concealed carry license or open carry has always been that people would get into a disagreement and just start blasting at each other. I can't help but laugh every time I hear that one.

[Flightmare]

My primary concern is that if this passes, you will have a lot of people carrying who don't know the law, don't even know there are laws, and will walk around blissfully ignorant, eventually exposing themselves tot he public as ignorant, and screwing it up for all us who do know the law.

There are people who carry in Texas (legally) without a license, and may not know Texas laws today;

Texans who carry in their vehicle carry under the Motorist Protection Act
Visitors from other states with an out of state license
People who received their CHL/LTC years ago, who have not kept up on laws passed since. (This is something I have found exceedingly useful about this forum.)

[Teamless]

If it is the the Bill of Rights - let the chips fall where they may - without exceptions or restrictions
If Darwin wins (or others lose as some are just idiots)

Might I suggest one small change in your philosophy? If, instead of looking for it in the Bill of Rights, you look at the delineated powers. If it is not listed that as something they can regulate, let the chips fall where they may.

Steve, you are always so eloquent in your language :)

[yakadoo]

This bill is a bit of a mess.

First, it adds language to 46.02 so that the current restrictions on unlicensed handgun carry apply only to people under twenty-one years of age, and open carry is only allowed in the same manner as for license holders.
However, it also amends 46.15(k) so that 46.02 doesn't apply to anyone who can legally purchase a firearm (not a handgun), effectively nullifying the changes made to 46.02 for all unprohibited people who are at least eighteen years old. Pick an age, Springer!

Next, it duplicates in 46.035(a) the open-carry language added to 46.02(a-2). There is no need for both, especially since 46.02(a-2) is essentially preempted by the change to 46.15(k).

Further, it does not extend the campus-carry prohibitions in 46.035(a-1)-(a-3) to persons without a license, so such persons would not be prohibited from carrying—concealed or openly—on college campuses generally, but would be prohibited from carrying within any buildings, at school-sponsored activities, or on university buses, which would be a confusing distinction.

Finally, what does "unlicensed holder with a handgun" even mean? In this context, what the "holder" is holding is a license; "unlicensed holder" is meaningless. Rather than adding clumsy language that doesn't even make a complete sentence ("Pursuant to Section 30.08, Penal Code (TRESPASS BY UNLICENSED HOLDER WITH A HANDGUN), may not enter this property with a handgun"), the bill should have simply applied 30.06 and 30.07 signs to people without licenses and permitted less lengthy text (like "UNLICENSED HANDGUN CARRY PROHIBITED") on a sign to prohibit unlicensed carry alone.