TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gsansing wrote:Charles-

Any word on a bill that would drop the "Gun Free" zones for CHL holders?

Gari

We can't change the federal "Gun Free School Zone" law, but CHL's are exempt from it anyway. The Texas "Weapon Free School Zone" law is not a stand alone crime. It just increases the penalty for commission of a crime within the zone. Since CHL's can carry handguns, then it has no impact on us unless we commit another crime while armed.

Chas.

Charles,

I believe that Gari meant bills that would remove 46.035.

srothstein wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gsansing wrote:Charles-

Any word on a bill that would drop the "Gun Free" zones for CHL holders?

Gari

We can't change the federal "Gun Free School Zone" law, but CHL's are exempt from it anyway. The Texas "Weapon Free School Zone" law is not a stand alone crime. It just increases the penalty for commission of a crime within the zone. Since CHL's can carry handguns, then it has no impact on us unless we commit another crime while armed.

Chas.

Charles,

I believe that Gari meant bills that would remove 46.035.

I think you're right. Yes, a bill to remove off-limits areas will be filed in the House and Senate.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB195 (Stickland, R) Relating to the carrying of handguns; providing for the open carrying of handguns; removing the requirement that a person who may lawfully possess handguns obtain a Concealed Handgun License in order to carry a handgun lawfully in the state of Texas, and conforming changes.
Impact: Created unlicensed open or concealed carry; retains all current off-limits areas.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

I see that HB 195 amends Sect. 411.207 Subsection (A) to add

The mere possession or carrying of a firearm, openly or concealed, with or without a Concealed Handgun License, shall not constitute probable cause for a peace officer to disarm or detain an otherwise law-abiding person.

I would like to see similar language added to HB 164 (or any other OC bill) stating that a peace officer may not detain a person for the sole purpose of determining whether they have a valid CHL. Probable cause of an actual crime should be required for any detention or disarming. An officer can't pull drivers over at random just to check their driver's license; he needs some other offense or probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. The same logic and protections should apply to persons carrying a handgun. Arguably, these protections are already present in the 4th Amendment and other sections of our law, but I think it's wise to spell them out specifically as they apply to OC so as to remove any confusion.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gsansing wrote:Charles-

Any word on a bill that would drop the "Gun Free" zones for CHL holders?

Gari

We can't change the federal "Gun Free School Zone" law, but CHL's are exempt from it anyway. The Texas "Weapon Free School Zone" law is not a stand alone crime. It just increases the penalty for commission of a crime within the zone. Since CHL's can carry handguns, then it has no impact on us unless we commit another crime while armed.

Chas.

Charles,

I believe that Gari meant bills that would remove 46.035.

I think you're right. Yes, a bill to remove off-limits areas will be filed in the House and Senate.

Chas.

Yes, let me clarify...I mean the "off limits zones" as provided under 46.035. I also see a bill has already been introduced for this.

ffemt300 wrote:I'm glad to see HB 223 in there. It's a shame we have to have a law to protect our children from "zero tolerance" school policies, but i like it nonetheless. I would like to see it provide for older children such as myself so that when I chew my grilled cheese sandwich into a rifle I dont get in trouble with my works firearm policy.

IMHO the age/grade limit needs to be done away with entirely. Case in point: a special needs kiddoh at a senior high school may legally be in grade 9, for example, but have the mental capacity of a fourth grader. How would that law be fair to him? Then again, it seems idiotic, to me, to think that anyone is seriously worried about a single-stack piece of toast, chewed into a vauge shape resembling a gun, worried that it is a serious threat.

I've created this thread as a sticky to allow for discussions about specific bills, or the session in general. I've moved all posts from the 2015 Bill Status Report to this thread so that it will be easier and faster for people to find and review the Bill Status Report. I strongly recommend that people go to the color coded and linked Bill Status Report on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, as it is much easier to use if you want to review the actual bill.

Chas.

Does anyone know if a knife law preemption bill will be introduced?

After reading through HB164 (licensed OC) I have a few thoughts.

1. The following language could benefit from a cleanup. If I read it literally it says that "unconcealed" means that the "holster" is visible. Perhaps it should be the "handgun" that's visible?

As currently written....

SECTION 17. Section 411.171, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subdivision (8) to read as follows:
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.

My cleanup

SECTION 17. Section 411.171, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subdivision (8) to read as follows:
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun that is wholly or partially visible and
carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster.

And..... let's take it a step further...

2. I'm uncomfortable with the specificity of "shoulder or belt holster". If I'm using an ankle holster and my pants leg rises up when I sit down, is that a violation? How about a pocket holster and an unintentional exposure? What about a holster pocket built into my jacket? What about a brief case/woman's purse/shoulder bag/gear bag that has a built-in holster. Am I in violation if I open my bag to retrieve an item from it and the handgun is exposed?
I'd prefer to see the language changed to something less restrictive? How about just "holster"? Like this...

SECTION 17. Section 411.171, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subdivision (8) to read as follows:
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun that is wholly or partially visible and
carried upon the person in a s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶e̶l̶t̶ holster.

RoyGBiv wrote:handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.

Yes, but you are thinking as a law abiding person
What about the thugs who don't use holsters?

So should be

handgun carried upon the person that
is wholly or partially visible.

Teamless wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.

Yes, but you are thinking as a law abiding person
What about the thugs who don't use holsters?

So should be

handgun carried upon the person that
is wholly or partially visible.

I believe I understand your intent to allow "Mexican Carry", but your version would also allow the handgun to be in your hand. Probably a non-starter.
Requiring a generic "holster" is not much of an impediment. "Mexican carry" should be avoided for safety reasons anyway.

I believe we'd agree that "shoulder or belt" is too restrictive. People carry in many different ways. It's a whole industry now.

Carried on or about one's person, not in one's hand?

RoyGBiv wrote:

Teamless wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.

Yes, but you are thinking as a law abiding person
What about the thugs who don't use holsters?

So should be

handgun carried upon the person that
is wholly or partially visible.

I believe I understand your intent to allow "Mexican Carry", but your version would also allow the handgun to be in your hand. Probably a non-starter.
Requiring a generic "holster" is not much of an impediment. "Mexican carry" should be avoided for safety reasons anyway.

I believe we'd agree that "shoulder or belt" is too restrictive. People carry in many different ways. It's a whole industry now.

I think the word holster is too restrictive.

I'm not saying I would want to do this, but what if I did want to openly carry my AR-15 pistol? Surely there's no holster that could hold it.

LDB415 wrote:Carried on or about one's person, not in one's hand?

Same scenario. Openly carrying an AR-15 pistol and I want to carry it resting on my shoulder, barrel pointing up. Still non-threatening, not in a holster, but now in my hand.

I don't want to get into the politics of openly carrying such a weapon in public, because I know it can be destructive to our cause. I'm more concerned about crafting the verbiage to allow the least restrictive method of carrying as possible. As long as you are not carrying it in a threatening manner, I don't think there should be a problem.

^^^ I'm ok with whatever the folks crafting the language can pass through the legislature. I just wanted to point out that the "shoulder and belt holster" language is way restrictive given the wide range of carry methods available today. I don't know many women that can match a proper gun belt to their routine attire, not to mention a shoulder holster.

I suspect a significant number of people would find any carry of any firearm in a person's hand as threatening. For that matter the same would apply to fixed blade knives and many other items probably.

If you want to carry your AR pistol I'd suggest a sling as a less threatening alternative.

I am not advocating any form of restriction but sadly there isn't enough common sense in the general public to avoid some form of restriction now and then.

LDB415 wrote:I suspect a significant number of people would find any carry of any firearm in a person's hand as threatening. For that matter the same would apply to fixed blade knives and many other items probably.

If you want to carry your AR pistol I'd suggest a sling as a less threatening alternative.

I am not advocating any form of restriction but sadly there isn't enough common sense in the general public to avoid some form of restriction now and then.

My point is the restriction should be that it cannot be carried in a manner calculated to cause alarm.