TexasCHLforum.com

jordanmills wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Here it is: HB 2756 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm

Good luck! I would love to have an option to open carry while travelling, hiking, hunting, etc....

Well you already can while traveling and hiking.

Yep, I can even when hunting, I can carry open. However, say when I leave the hunting ground and drive for lunch in down town of a small town, I have to conceal or risk being arrested and beat the rap. If with CHL we can have open carry as option, you would not worry. Also, new CHLer would not have to worry about printing or concealment issues.

Here it is on the leg. website:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB2756" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's got no co-authors and it's late in the session. This is going to be an uphill battle.

Beiruty wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Here it is: HB 2756 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm

Good luck! I would love to have an option to open carry while travelling, hiking, hunting, etc....

Well you already can while traveling and hiking.

Yep, I can even when hunting, I can carry open. However, say when I leave the hunting ground and drive for lunch in down town of a small town, I have to conceal or risk being arrested and beat the rap. If with CHL we can have open carry as option, you would not worry. Also, new CHLer would not have to worry about printing or concealment issues.

Oops, I meant hunting. Hiking would be a stretch.

C-dub wrote:

redlin67 wrote:I know a lot of you guys and gals are not proponents of "open carry",

That's not entirely true. Many of us here are in favor of OC. What many of us aren't in favor of is having more businesses put up 30.06 signs. What we are worried about is the high probability that if OC were to become law in Texas that it would be lumped in with the CHL laws and the same sign that prohibits CC would also prohibit OC. As it stands, there are many ignorant business owners and they are not posting 30.06 signs, but what they don't see isn't going to hurt us. However, if they really don't want guns in their place of business, the first time someone walks in OCing and they call the police they will be informed of the proper way to prohibit law abiding people from carrying a gun in their store. We can currently carry in more places than probably any other state. In order to get OC passed that could change or more places would figure out how to keep us out. It's a risk many of us aren't willing to take.

Unfortunately as far as the real world goes, C-dub is spot on.

Grog wrote:Put a property who wants to ban open carry under a different rule, that way they have to buy two signs if they really want to ban all guns

This has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum. According to Charles, who should know if anyone does, a two sign ordinance would never pass. If anything, the legislature would lump both CHL and OC together in the same signage. So 30.06 would cover both and correct signage may show up more often. There are places now that have gunbuster signs or other sorts of no-gun signs that we can walk right past because of 30.06. If OC passes and 30.06 gets amended to include OC, you can bet that those places will put up the proper sign the minute they see someone OC in their establishment. Right now they live in blissful ignorance.

baldeagle wrote:

Grog wrote:Put a property who wants to ban open carry under a different rule, that way they have to buy two signs if they really want to ban all guns

This has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum. According to Charles, who should know if anyone does, a two sign ordinance would never pass. If anything, the legislature would lump both CHL and OC together in the same signage. So 30.06 would cover both and correct signage may show up more often. There are places now that have gunbuster signs or other sorts of no-gun signs that we can walk right past because of 30.06. If OC passes and 30.06 gets amended to include OC, you can bet that those places will put up the proper sign the minute they see someone OC in their establishment. Right now they live in blissful ignorance.

This is exactly how the bill has been introduced, OC and CC all lumped into 30.06. The stage is set...

Aggie_engr wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Grog wrote:Put a property who wants to ban open carry under a different rule, that way they have to buy two signs if they really want to ban all guns

This has been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseum. According to Charles, who should know if anyone does, a two sign ordinance would never pass. If anything, the legislature would lump both CHL and OC together in the same signage. So 30.06 would cover both and correct signage may show up more often. There are places now that have gunbuster signs or other sorts of no-gun signs that we can walk right past because of 30.06. If OC passes and 30.06 gets amended to include OC, you can bet that those places will put up the proper sign the minute they see someone OC in their establishment. Right now they live in blissful ignorance.

This is exactly how the bill has been introduced, OC and CC all lumped into 30.06. The stage is set...

Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

jordanmills wrote:Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

Says who? Name one state that doesn't have a clause allowing businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment? Thesr signs, whether 30.06 or not will always apply.

Aggie_engr wrote:

jordanmills wrote:Just licensed open carry. When we get unlicensed, those signs won't apply.

Says who? Name one state that doesn't have a clause allowing businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment? Thesr signs, whether 30.06 or not will always apply.

Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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."

C-dub wrote:The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A 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."

Actually not. The 30.06 sign isn't what's binding, it's the actual penal code S 30.06 that's binding.

(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.

Receiving notice is the posting of a compliant 30.06 sign, regardless of the words on the sign. Clause 1 just says "carries a handgun" with no regard to that handgun being concealed. So a 30.06 effectively prohibits entry of an armed license holder even after the proposed legislation, even if the handgun is plainly visible.

You'll note the bit about "under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" in clause one, too. TPC 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of that subchapter. Someone carrying under the authority of an LEO commission (eg an on or off duty police officer) or someone carrying under the authority of exclusion of applicability of TPC 46.02 (eg, someone who is traveling) is not subject to the notice of a 30.06-compliant sign.

Though I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of one of the board's lawyers on my amateur analysis of the above.

jordanmills wrote:Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

I believe you are missing the point, and that point being that 30.06/gun buster, licensed/unlicensed, concealed/open, there will always be a provision in the law to allow businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment. I don't see how the wonders of unlicensed open carry would magically negate this reality?

C-dub wrote:The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

That is true, but we are discussing the open carry bill that has been introduced in the current session, which strikes out concealed three times in your statement above, which just leaves "handgun" and no distinction between open or concealed, which to me means all handguns regardless of method of carry. Read the bill here. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aggie_engr wrote:

jordanmills wrote:Says the wording on the sign. All it does is say that possession of a handgun in accordance with the licensing chapter is trespass. It doesn't say anything about possession of a handgun under other authority. Cops can carry right past a 30.06 without worry about trespass.

I believe you are missing the point, and that point being that 30.06/gun buster, licensed/unlicensed, concealed/open, there will always be a provision in the law to allow businesses to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment. I don't see how the wonders of unlicensed open carry would magically negate this reality?

C-dub wrote:The way 30.06 is currently written, licensed or unlicensed open carry wouldn't be affected. It specifically says "concealed handgun" three times. However, I'm relatively sure it would be changed to include open carry however it might be passed.

That is true, but we are discussing the open carry bill that has been introduced in the current session, which strikes out concealed three times in your statement above, which just leaves "handgun" and no distinction between open or concealed, which to me means all handguns regardless of method of carry. Read the bill here. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've read it. Again, read the bit in 30.06 about "under the authority of". And read my post again while you're at it.

jordanmills wrote:I've read it. Again, read the bit in 30.06 about "under the authority of". And read my post again while you're at it.

So you're saying that the currently proposed bill does not include open as well as concealed carry under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code in the 30.06 wording?

And again, name one state that allows unlicensed open or concealed carry that doesn't also have a provision to let businesses decide whether they want to ban the carrying of arms in their establishment? I just don't see how you are making the correlation between this bill, which pertains to licensed open carry, and unlicensed open carry. This bill has nothing to do with unlicensed open carry therefore nothing in it can be applied to such.