TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

TVGuy wrote:What bout HB 164? Haven't seen that one mentioned. Reading now.

30.07.... Now 2 separate big ugly signs. LIKE.

JSThane wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

G.A. Heath wrote:

JSThane wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

G.A. Heath wrote:

JSThane wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

Far better, I think, to demand all we want and then "compromise" down, instead of proposing what is, ultimately, a compromise already.

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

How so? It would be progress and would not cause many, if any, new 30.06 signs. If 30.06 is tied to OC it will cause more postings of 30.06. If you have separate signs then if a business bans OC with a gun busters sign licensed CC is still legal there unless they post 30.06. This also allows property owners the choice of banning one but not other or both together. This actually makes it easier to legislators in order to get their vote.

I have finally had a chance to look at HB195, this is NAGR/OCT's bill. I found a number of issues, the three key problems I see are:

1. The bill would require Bill would require 30.06 notice to prohibit carry at Correctional Facility and for other locations already requiring it under 46.035, but with 30.06 remaining untouched it would not apply to unlicensed carry so it would be legal for an unlicensed person to carry in those locations no matter what signage was posted under a strict reading of the law.

2. Bill would create 46.15(k) with the language:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or any other law to the contrary, no person shall be required to obtain any license to carry a handgun as a condition for being able to carry handguns openly or concealed in the State of Texas except a person who is prohibited from possessing a handgun under 18 USC ‰ 922.

which would be pointless, redundant, unneeded, and somewhat out of place.

3. While it modifies 411.207(a) it leaves 411.207(b) and 411.207(c) unchanged among other problems I see in this Section 5.

Bonus problem: Bill has 2 Section 5s.

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

How so? It would be progress and would not cause many, if any, new 30.06 signs. If 30.06 is tied to OC it will cause more postings of 30.06. If you have separate signs then if a business bans OC with a gun busters sign licensed CC is still legal there unless they post 30.06. This also allows property owners the choice of banning one but not other or both together. This actually makes it easier to legislators in order to get their vote.

Be progress? Gunbuster signs are everywhere! I understand that OC and CC should not be tied as far as signage goes, agreed. But if any old sign bans OC, there would basically be no point of trying to OC unless you were going for a walk down the street and back.

JSThane wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

JSThane wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I don't understand why HB 164 is defining an unconcealed firearm in that manner. It's limiting it to firearms in a shoulder or belt holster.

What about a car holster? Drop-leg holster? Ankle holster? Smart Carry? MIC holster? Clip draw? Versa Carry? Flash Bang? Shirt Holster/Tactical Shirt?

Not saying I agree with all of these kinds of carry, but there's more to carrying than shoulder and belt holsters.

Your going to open carry in a flash bang?

I don't think my wife would want to openly carry in a flash-bang, nor would she approve of other women openly carrying in such fashion around me. How about just inserting language clarifying that no license is needed, and rewriting 30.06 to include OC? I'm not terribly upset about the notion of businesses who don't want my money anyway having to reprint signs. It seems that there's a lot of mountains being made out of molehills here, in an attempt to preserve the status quo while rendering said status quo obsolete.

In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

Far better, I think, to demand all we want and then "compromise" down, instead of proposing what is, ultimately, a compromise already.

Totally agree.

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

How so? It would be progress and would not cause many, if any, new 30.06 signs. If 30.06 is tied to OC it will cause more postings of 30.06. If you have separate signs then if a business bans OC with a gun busters sign licensed CC is still legal there unless they post 30.06. This also allows property owners the choice of banning one but not other or both together. This actually makes it easier to legislators in order to get their vote.

Be progress? Gunbuster signs are everywhere! I understand that OC and CC should not be tied as far as signage goes, agreed. But if any old sign bans OC, there would basically be no point of trying to OC unless you were going for a walk down the street and back.

The problem is if they have a gun busters sign already and you OC into a business then tell them their sign means nothing they will probably still call the police on you. Then you will face an arrest, with a defense to prosecution, or law enforcement informing the business that they need a specific sign which they will then post. Perhaps it would be better to convince property owners not to ban carry than try to sneak one past them once before they catch on and get mad?

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:In regards to unlicensed (aka Constitutional) Carry there are many who think there are not the votes in the legislature for it. There is a lot of belief that there are enough votes to pass licensed OC. So the question is do you want legal OC of modern firearms or do you want to demand unlicensed carry?

How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

There would be no point to passing any bill in that case.

How so? It would be progress and would not cause many, if any, new 30.06 signs. If 30.06 is tied to OC it will cause more postings of 30.06. If you have separate signs then if a business bans OC with a gun busters sign licensed CC is still legal there unless they post 30.06. This also allows property owners the choice of banning one but not other or both together. This actually makes it easier to legislators in order to get their vote.

Be progress? Gunbuster signs are everywhere! I understand that OC and CC should not be tied as far as signage goes, agreed. But if any old sign bans OC, there would basically be no point of trying to OC unless you were going for a walk down the street and back.

The problem is if they have a gun busters sign already and you OC into a business then tell them their sign means nothing they will probably still call the police on you. Then you will face an arrest, with a defense to prosecution, or law enforcement informing the business that they need a specific sign which they will then post. Perhaps it would be better to convince property owners not to ban carry than try to sneak one past them once before they catch on and get mad?

Agreed. The reality of open carry is that you're not going to be able to do it in businesses where the owners don't want you to do it. If they'll post a gunbuster sign, they'll most likely tell anyone who carries past the sign to take his or her gun outside. If they keep having to tell people to take their guns outside, they'll post a 30.06 or 30.07 or whatever sign is required. OC activists need to quit operating under the assumption that they're going to be able to force open carry on or sneak open carry past unwilling shop owners--it's not going to happen.

sbrawley wrote:In the event a 30.07 sign is created, I see a comprisable position for businesses.
30.07 will replace most posted 30.06 signs. Take on an ''out of sight, out of mind" philosophy. Although the anti's will continue to whine because that is what they live for, the majority of carriers will be more accepting knowing that they will still be allowed to carry and since the majority claim that they probably won't OC anyway, it's a win-win.
If a business does happen to post both signs, then everyone will know where they truly stand with firearms.

I don't see this happening. The legislature is highly unlikely to require shop owners who want to ban all guns to post 8+ square feet of signage. The only way we're likely to end up with two different signage requirements is if open carry has either no signage requirement or a very loose signage requirement (e.g., "at least 3 inches in diameter").

G.A. Heath wrote:
How about instead of touching 30.06 lets leave it and 30.05 alone and let any sign ban OC and a 30.06 ban licensed CC?

^^^^^This

Bladed wrote:

sbrawley wrote:In the event a 30.07 sign is created, I see a comprisable position for businesses.
30.07 will replace most posted 30.06 signs. Take on an ''out of sight, out of mind" philosophy. Although the anti's will continue to whine because that is what they live for, the majority of carriers will be more accepting knowing that they will still be allowed to carry and since the majority claim that they probably won't OC anyway, it's a win-win.
If a business does happen to post both signs, then everyone will know where they truly stand with firearms.

I don't see this happening. The legislature is highly unlikely to require shop owners who want to ban all guns to post 8+ square feet of signage. The only way we're likely to end up with two different signage requirements is if open carry has either no signage requirement or a very loose signage requirement (e.g., "at least 3 inches in diameter").

I would rather there be a requirement for a specific 3 inch sign than any gunbuster sign making it illegal. If it's any gunbuster sign, there probably wouldn't be a requirement for where it needs to be and size, so it would be easily missed, and if any sign makes it criminal trespassing->misdemeanor, and loss the ability to CC.
If there is a gunbuster sign and you ask me to leave, that's fine, I'll leave and take my business elsewhere. But if it's a misdemeanor and I happened to miss your no guns sticker that is barely visible, ouch. Ouch ouch ouch.