HB308

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

[Jaguar]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Well I understand that. But it does seem odd that an intentional act of drinking will have a lower penalty then something that could well be unintentional such as not seeing a sign. Of course, in the future that reason could be used as a reason to lower the 30.06 penalty.

[thatguy]

Charles has already updated his thread on proposed legislation:

viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"HB308 (Springer, R, A+) Relating to the places where a person may carry a handgun if the person is licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
Impact: Removes off-limits locations currently applicable for Concealed Handgun Licensees, as set out in TPC §46.03 and §46.035.
Position on Bill: Support this excellent bill! It is arguably the most important Bill for CHL's since the passage of SB60 in 1995.
Status: Filed 11/17/14."

If I remember the last bill (3218) from 2013 died in committee?

[MeMelYup]

I see that most places are deleted from off limits including places if incarceration. Won't that create problems?

[Charlies.Contingency]

3) What are the changes that you are referencing to? I did not notice any real changes, but I may have missed a section or two and not noticed.

OK, one change (page 8 in the MS Word version). Apparently I in my head I amalgamated some of the changes to DAs and Judges with security guards. Toldja it was a quick run through it. Back to work!

That's fine, at least I wasn't going crazy on it, I was going nuts trying to find the section for which you were talking about!

[RoyGBiv]

the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Please let us know what we can do to help move this bill forward.

Is it too early to bring this to the attention of my local representatives?

Thanks!

[Charlies.Contingency]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Do you think we could see a bill, reducing the restrictions in the Labor Code as well? Specifically the Exemptions to the Restriction on Employer Prohibiting CHL's? I'm not for being to carry on us regardless of whether or not our employer is okay, but I think we ought to be allowed to have it in our vehicles, pretty much everywhere. I have difficulty finding much reasoning against it, it's not as if we will be carrying it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Is it too early to bring this to the attention of my local representatives?

Thanks!

Yes, because no one is in Austin other than staff.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles has already updated his thread on proposed legislation:

viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"HB308 (Springer, R, A+) Relating to the places where a person may carry a handgun if the person is licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
Impact: Removes off-limits locations currently applicable for Concealed Handgun Licensees, as set out in TPC §46.03 and §46.035.
Position on Bill: Support this excellent bill! It is arguably the most important Bill for CHL's since the passage of SB60 in 1995.
Status: Filed 11/17/14."

If I remember the last bill (3218) from 2013 died in committee?

Yes, because liberal El Paso Democrat, Chairman Joe Pickett wouldn't give the Bill a vote in committee.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Well I understand that. But it does seem odd that an intentional act of drinking will have a lower penalty then something that could well be unintentional such as not seeing a sign. Of course, in the future that reason could be used as a reason to lower the 30.06 penalty.

Again, I fully agree with you that violating TPC §30.06 should be a Class C. However, no one is going to unintentionally miss a properly posted §30.06 sign. It's big and it must be posted where a reasonable person will see it before entering. I wouldn't even try to sell the Legislature on the fact that a properly 30.06 sign could be missed. I also feel that trespassing on someone's property is in a different category than becoming intoxicated. The former is an intentional act and the latter likely is not.

You have to remember that to reduce the classification of a §30.06 violation from an A to a C, we must argue that the penalty for one's intentional act in violation of a criminal statute should be punished at a reduced level. That's a hard sell, not impossible, but a hard sell. The only way I see it happening is if a first offense is a Class C and all subsequent violations are a Class B.

I do not anticipate such a bill to be filed for 2015.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Do you think we could see a bill, reducing the restrictions in the Labor Code as well? Specifically the Exemptions to the Restriction on Employer Prohibiting CHL's? I'm not for being to carry on us regardless of whether or not our employer is okay, but I think we ought to be allowed to have it in our vehicles, pretty much everywhere. I have difficulty finding much reasoning against it, it's not as if we will be carrying it.

Sorry I don't understand your question. That said, the parking lot bill likely will not be addressed this session. I'm not happy about that either.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I see that most places are deleted from off limits including places if incarceration. Won't that create problems?

No, because a CHL can be disarmed in police departments and sheriff's offices, the only locations where you will find jails. No one is getting into a prison with a handgun, so there is no need for a separate offense.

Chas.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Do you think we could see a bill, reducing the restrictions in the Labor Code as well? Specifically the Exemptions to the Restriction on Employer Prohibiting CHL's? I'm not for being to carry on us regardless of whether or not our employer is okay, but I think we ought to be allowed to have it in our vehicles, pretty much everywhere. I have difficulty finding much reasoning against it, it's not as if we will be carrying it.

Sorry I don't understand your question. That said, the parking lot bill likely will not be addressed this session. I'm not happy about that either.

Chas.

You may not have understood my question, but you still answered it. (You also address how certain parts came to be in my other thread.) Thank you Chas.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I wonder how 308 would affect a bill for licensed OC, if 308 were to pass before licensed OC?

It would have no impact, other than removing off-limits areas. The concealment requirement of TPC §46.035(a) would simply go away, so the reduction from a Class A to a Class C misdemeanor would be moot.

Chas.

I would also like the penalty for missing a 30.06 to be a Class C.

Not in this Bill. We're not going to risk loading it down with something that could well kill it.

I agree that TPC §30.06 should be a Class C, but that's minor compared to the sweeping improvements in this Bill

Chas.

Well I understand that. But it does seem odd that an intentional act of drinking will have a lower penalty then something that could well be unintentional such as not seeing a sign. Of course, in the future that reason could be used as a reason to lower the 30.06 penalty.

Again, I fully agree with you that violating TPC §30.06 should be a Class C. However, no one is going to unintentionally miss a properly posted §30.06 sign. It's big and it must be posted where a reasonable person will see it before entering. I wouldn't even try to sell the Legislature on the fact that a properly 30.06 sign could be missed. I also feel that trespassing on someone's property is in a different category than becoming intoxicated. The former is an intentional act and the latter likely is not.

You have to remember that to reduce the classification of a §30.06 violation from an A to a C, we must argue that the penalty for one's intentional act in violation of a criminal statute should be punished at a reduced level. That's a hard sell, not impossible, but a hard sell. The only way I see it happening is if a first offense is a Class C and all subsequent violations are a Class B.

I do not anticipate such a bill to be filed for 2015.

Chas.

I understand you reasoning behind you Chas. It's almost impossible to know somebody passed a 30.06 sign with a CCW, and I have yet to see anybody arrested for this offense. As hard as it is to miss, I would hate to see somebody in our CHL community catch this, because they were too busy to notice the sign newly posted at a regular place they visit, or they simply did not notice it. I think a "warning" would be nice for this offense, as I think it is much more acceptable to receive a ticket for not seeing a sign, but there would be no excuses for consecutive offenses. A class B for the said offense with previous convictions would be acceptable as well, because it's not a sort of crime that has negative affects on others, but that is just my opinion on the matter.

Maybe if we get the ball moving good this session, and make some good ground, we could see it in 2017? That would certainly be nice, but we must not bite off more than we can chew...

[ELB]

I may be restating the obvious here, but this is a big (and welcome) potential change, and I want to understand it fully.

Given that HB308 makes PC 46.02 and 46.03 not applicable to CHL holders, is it a fair shorthand to say that CHL holders would be able to carry a concealed handgun (and "illegal knife" and club) pretty much anywhere, excepting private property for which the 30.06 notice has been given, and the secure area of law enforcement facilities and prisons?

What would the remaining restrictions on licensed concealed carry?
- Private property for which effective notice has been given
- Secure area of a law enforcement facility (does this include prisons or are they called out separately?)
- Carrying while intoxicated
- Intentionally failing to conceal.
- ?