TexasCHLforum.com

BPNovum wrote:

jmra wrote:

BPNovum wrote:I am not sure how changing the wording of the sign from concealed to concealed or not concealed creates any more or less locations where a CHL holder can or cannot carry.

Very simple. Right now business owners have no clue that a CC person is armed in their store. So most of them don't go looking for what they need to do legally to keep them out. Out of sight out of mind.
Now if the same business owner (who knows nothing about guns) sees people start walking into his store with guns on their hip and other customers complain he is going to find out what he needs to do to stop it. If stopping OC requires a 30.06 sign, then the store that I had no problem OCing in before is now off limits.
If this Bill in its final form alters 30.06 (ties OC to 30.06) many members of this forum and the CHL community will do everything we can to defeat it.

Valid point, but I don't know that this scenario has played out in other open carry states. But I understand what you are saying.

As for dual point of resistance, I agree that should be more specific and using an industry standard like "Level 2" would be better. What has Lavender said about that? When I talked to his staff they specifically used the term Level 2. I didn't bring it up when I spoke with him directly.

Other states don't have 30.06 signs.

johnferg69 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:I know everyone is fighting for no changes to 30.06.But IF the NRA is helping to write and backs this bill but 30.06 gets rewritten is the TSRA going to fight against the NRA?

The NRA absolutely did not write the bill and we did not approve any amendment of TPC §30.06. This bill will not pass if there is any change to TPC§30.06. I was given a copy very shortly before it was filed and had nothing to do with writing it.

Chas.

I don't believe anyone said the NRA wrote the bill. Rep.Lavender stated "We worked with the NRA, who has been very supportive, to come up with a bill that would not make a business bar concealed carry because they may have concerns about Open Carry"

With all due respect, Is there anyone who may have helped from the NRA besides you? I'd hate to think that Rep. Lavender is lying about getting help from them or that Bob Price is purposefully misquoting NRA-ILA spokeswoman Jacqueline Otto in this article;
http://texasgopvote.com/regions/texas/t ... rry-005062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NRA did not contribute one word to HB700. It was written entirely by legislative counsel. I cannot and will not say more.
Also, look at the quote from Ms. Otto; it doesn't say one word about NRA writing or contributing language to HB700.

Chas.

dicion wrote:They shouldn't be asking the NRA about anything STATE related. They don't know the political landscape.

That's absurd! Texas is the only state that has an NRA lobbyist who lives within the state. NRA is heavily involved in Texas politics and certainly knows "the political landscape."

Chas.

Thank you for the clarification Mr. cotton. I appreciate the frankness as I was a bit concerned for a moment. I look forward to seeing how the NRA can help guide this bill in the right direction. If that is in deed what is on the table.

I think that the NRA is a valuable endorsement and should be encouraged.

Mr. Price, the reason one sign has not been an issue in other states is because they don't have the greatness of the 30.06 sign. In many of those states a simple gun-buster sign can prohibit both types of carry, while some also require oral notice. Please return 30.06 to its current wording.

Rep. Lavender has said HB700 will have a committee substitute and I have no reason to doubt it. The current TPC §30.06 issue can be resolved, so there's no reason to write off the bill at this point.

Chas.

I wish we had the power to write the bills.

I couldn't call Rep. Lavender's office (one of my sons broke his arm), but will when I get a chance.

I am confused about the retention points vs Level II holster, as well. Seems ambiguous.

Argh! TAM posted a link to another link where the two points of resistance was described and I can't find it again. Now, I currently use a Blackhawk Serpa Level II holster, but it doesn't look like what that link described where you have to push downward and a button to get it out of the holster. So, my question is, even though I have this holster would it meet the requirements as currently written in this bill?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dicion wrote:They shouldn't be asking the NRA about anything STATE related. They don't know the political landscape.

That's absurd! Texas is the only state that has an NRA lobbyist who lives within the state. NRA is heavily involved in Texas politics and certainly knows "the political landscape."

Chas.

Alright, I withdraw my statement then.
My ignorance for not knowing the above, I apologize.

RottenApple wrote:

smtimelevi wrote:There are already many instances where open carry in Texas is legal.

Ok. I'll bite. Other than 1) on your own property or property you control, 2) as a CSO or PPO in the performance of or on your way to/from duty, and 3) long guns (and I assume we are talking about handguns here), where can you open carry in Texas?

Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(1) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section 431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal institution;

(2) is traveling;

(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

(4) holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas Private Security Board, if the person is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as an officer commissioned under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment and is wearing the officer's uniform and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view;

(5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person's security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:

(A) is engaged in the performance of the person's duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person's place of assignment; and

(B) is either:

(i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer's weapon in plain view; or

(ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer's weapon in a concealed manner;

(6) is carrying a concealed handgun and a valid license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category as the handgun the person is carrying;

(7) holds an alcoholic beverage permit or license or is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage permit or license if the person is supervising the operation of the permitted or licensed premises

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Lavender has said HB700 will have a committee substitute and I have no reason to doubt it. The current TPC §30.06 issue can be resolved, so there's no reason to write off the bill at this point.

Chas.

Charles, you need to put on your striped shirt and get your referee whistle and yellow flag out.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Lavender has said HB700 will have a committee substitute and I have no reason to doubt it. The current TPC §30.06 issue can be resolved, so there's no reason to write off the bill at this point.

Chas.

Charles, you need to put on your striped shirt and get your referee whistle and yellow flag out.

Anygunanywhere

Okay, I have my referee shirt on.

A lot of people are very concerned about HB700's amendment of TPC §30.06 and his staff are obviously aware of this widespread concern. I cannot imagine Rep. Lavender would have posted on his website, and commented in public speaking events, that he understood the importance of not amending TPC §30.06, only to turn around and intentionally ask legislative counsel to draft a bill that gutted this critical protection enjoyed by CHL's since 1997. I do not know him personally, but I believe him to be a straight forward pro-gun guy. It is far more likely that he told legislative counsel to draft something that set up a different sign for open-carry. I base this comment on the statement by one of his staff that claimed a constitutional problem may exist with requiring different signs for open and concealed carry. (One of our Forum Members posted this conversation; I didn't talk to anyone in his office.)

Leg. counsel often don't draft precisely what was asked and sometimes it's because their instructions weren't clear. At other times they put their own preferences into a bill even thought they aren't supposed to do that. Most of the bills I've written have been sent to legislative counsel to get their "stamp" and you can bet something will be changed, even if it was just formatting. Sometimes those are major changes that have to be corrected with a committee substitute. Based upon other statements from Rep. Lavender's office, I believe this to be precisely what happened with HB700.

Rep. Lavender's staff have heard your concerns and we'll have to wait for the committee hearing to see if a substitute is offered and if it fixes the TPC §30.06 problem. Until then I suggest we give him and his staff some breathing room. If a committee substitute isn't filed, or if one is filed that doesn't satisfactorily address the TPC §30.06 issue, then it will be time to protect the gains we've made over the last 20 years. Remember also that problems can be fixed in the Senate.

Anyone who has been around the Forum since 2011 knows that amending TPC §30.06 is a deal-breaker with me and that has not changed. I just think we need to give Rep. Lavender the time to amend HB700, knowing that the TPC §30.06 problem may not be of his making. If it was intentional, we'll know soon enough.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Lavender has said HB700 will have a committee substitute and I have no reason to doubt it. The current TPC §30.06 issue can be resolved, so there's no reason to write off the bill at this point.

Chas.

Charles, you need to put on your striped shirt and get your referee whistle and yellow flag out.

Anygunanywhere

Okay, I have my referee shirt on.

A lot of people are very concerned about HB700's amendment of TPC §30.06 and his staff are obviously aware of this widespread concern. I cannot imagine Rep. Lavender would have posted on his website, and commented in public speaking events, that he understood the importance of not amending TPC §30.06, only to turn around and intentionally ask legislative counsel to draft a bill that gutted this critical protection enjoyed by CHL's since 1997. I do not know him personally, but I believe him to be a straight forward pro-gun guy. It is far more likely that he told legislative counsel to draft something that set up a different sign for open-carry. I base this comment on the statement by one of his staff that claimed a constitutional problem may exist with requiring different signs for open and concealed carry. (One of our Forum Members posted this conversation; I didn't talk to anyone in his office.)

Leg. counsel often don't draft precisely what was asked and sometimes it's because their instructions weren't clear. At other times they put their own preferences into a bill even thought they aren't supposed to do that. Most of the bills I've written have been sent to legislative counsel to get their "stamp" and you can bet something will be changed, even if it must formatting. Sometimes those are major changes that have to be corrected with a committee substitute. Based upon other statements from Rep. Lavender's office, I believe this to be precisely what happened with HB700.

Rep. Lavender's staff have heard your concerns and we'll have to wait for the committee hearing to see if a substitute is offered and if it fixes the TPC §30.06 problem. Until then I suggest we give him and his staff some breathing room. If a committee substitute isn't filed, or if one is filed that doesn't satisfactorily address the TPC §30.06 issue, then it will be time to protect the gains we've made over the last 20 years. Remember also that problems can be fixed in the Senate.

Anyone who has been around the Forum since 2011 knows that amending TPC §30.06 is a deal-breaker with me and that has not changed. I just think we need to give Rep. Lavender the time to amend HB700, knowing that the TPC §30.06 problem may not be of his making. If it was intentional, we'll know soon enough.

Chas.

That, Sir, is why I keep paying my dues!!!!

I spoke with Calendars Committee Chairman Todd Hunter yesterday. He said he will make sure the bill gets through his committee when it gets to him. He recommends it gets there as soon as possible so it doesn't get lost like it did last session when it cleared committee late in the session and calendars could not deal with it.

I did not talk to him about 30:06 because that issue should be resolved in the Homeland Security and Public Safety committee.

BPNovum wrote:I spoke with Calendars Committee Chairman Todd Hunter yesterday. He said he will make sure the bill gets through his committee when it gets to him. He recommends it gets there as soon as possible so it doesn't get lost like it did last session when it cleared committee late in the session and calendars could not deal with it.

I did not talk to him about 30:06 because that issue should be resolved in the Homeland Security and Public Safety committee.

I hope you're right, and Hunter wants this through. Hopefully 30.06 does get ironed out in Committee and this and the Personal Protection on Campus bill gets through at the same time. That would be sweet.