TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen wrote:From what I can figure out on first reading of the committee substitute, we get a reduction of violating a 30.06 sign from Class A misdemeanor to Class C, and.... I really can't see anything else of significance.

That's my take on it also. The take away I get is you can carry just about anywhere if you're willing to pay $200 for the privelige. I am very curious to read what Charles' opinion is because it looks like the committee removed several sections of the original bill.

But, hey, i'm more than happy to get the Class C reduction.

It also changes how we can carry in a polling place.

You still cannot carry into the portion of the premises where the voting is going on, but you can carry into other portions of the building. This is good for early voting locations like Randall's/HEB where currently the entire building is off limits if early voting is happening.

The reduction is already part of OC bill.

It also made 46.035 (except the intoxication subsection) a Class C for first offense. This includes intentional display, bars, sporting events, correctional facility, and posted meetings of governmental entities.

It also removed the 46.02 and 46.03 exemption for CHL's. Teachers and students will now be helpless victims for two more years.

MikeHoncho wrote:It also removed the 46.02 and 46.03 exemption for CHL's. Teachers and students will now be helpless victims for two more years.

Along with those of us parents who like to volunteer at schools and on field trips.

tornado wrote:

MikeHoncho wrote:It also removed the 46.02 and 46.03 exemption for CHL's. Teachers and students will now be helpless victims for two more years.

Along with those of us parents who like to volunteer at schools and on field trips.

Unless you're not officially on the trip with them or a chaperon, but just happen to be at the same place at the same time like many other people.

C.S.H.B. 308
BILL ANALYSIS

By: Springer

Homeland Security & Public Safety

Committee Report (Substituted)

Scroll down for >> COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00308H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C.S.H.B. No. 308
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00308H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

C-dub wrote:Unless you're not officially on the trip with them or a chaperon, but just happen to be at the same place at the same time like many other people.

It's a "defense to prosecution" not a "does not apply." It might be hard to defend showing up where you know your kid will be on a field trip on the grounds that you're not an official chaperone. At least I imagine it would be here in the People's Republic of Travis County.

Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.

So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks

Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?

tornado wrote:

C-dub wrote:Unless you're not officially on the trip with them or a chaperon, but just happen to be at the same place at the same time like many other people.

It's a "defense to prosecution" not a "does not apply." It might be hard to defend showing up where you know your kid will be on a field trip on the grounds that you're not an official chaperone. At least I imagine it would be here in the People's Republic of Travis County.

Maybe currently, but with the clarification it might not be.

RoyGBiv wrote:Although I hoped for school carry, I didn't give it much of a chance.

So... What's left?
Class C for first violation.
Clarifications in 30.06 re: schools, polling places and what happens if you stumble upon a field trip.
UCW strikes hospital and amusement parks

Is it ok to say that I liked the original Bill better?

It's still not a bad bill by any means, but removing the section of the bill that exempts licensees from 46.02 and 46.03 pretty much guts it.

CleverNickname wrote:It's still not a bad bill by any means, but removing the section of the bill that exempts licensees from 46.02 and 46.03 pretty much guts it.

I can agree with this. We don't lose anything, and it's better than HB308 dying in committee. It's not the big jump we wanted, but progress is good.

Why the Jan 1 effective date...?

(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
.
.
(5) a person who 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.