TexasCHLforum.com

Grayling813 wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 4:05 pm

ELB wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 3:21 pm GOA's summary of bill: https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-fin ... es-it-say/

Assuming Gov. Abbott signs HB 1927

If he doesn't after saying he would, he is making the most serious political mistake of his career as he is about to start campaigning for re-election.

Assuming Gov. Abbott doesn't veto HB 1927.

I guess we will get Constitutional Carry as long as we follow the signs

Grayling813 wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 4:05 pm

ELB wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 3:21 pm GOA's summary of bill: https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-fin ... es-it-say/

Assuming Gov. Abbott signs HB 1927

If he doesn't after saying he would, he is making the most serious political mistake of his career as he is about to start campaigning for re-election.

that was my thinking, if he defaults and does nothing it makes him look even weaker.
i think we have a few contenders that can adjust him on the podium of political races

powerboatr wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 6:14 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 4:05 pm

ELB wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 3:21 pm GOA's summary of bill: https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-fin ... es-it-say/

Assuming Gov. Abbott signs HB 1927

If he doesn't after saying he would, he is making the most serious political mistake of his career as he is about to start campaigning for re-election.

that was my thinking, if he defaults and does nothing it makes him look even weaker.
i think we have a few contenders that can adjust him on the podium of political races

I believe unless he vetoes it, it becomes law at the end of the current legislative session. He will sign it.

ScottDLS wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 6:22 pm

powerboatr wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 6:14 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 4:05 pm

ELB wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 3:21 pm GOA's summary of bill: https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-fin ... es-it-say/

Assuming Gov. Abbott signs HB 1927

If he doesn't after saying he would, he is making the most serious political mistake of his career as he is about to start campaigning for re-election.

that was my thinking, if he defaults and does nothing it makes him look even weaker.
i think we have a few contenders that can adjust him on the podium of political races

I believe unless he vetoes it, it becomes law at the end of the current legislative session. He will sign it.

June 20th, if he hasn't vetoed it by then it becomes law. The law itself does not take effect obviously until Sept 1st.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/Dates-of-Interest.pdf

Flightmare wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 7:18 pm

ScottDLS wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 6:22 pm

powerboatr wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 6:14 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 4:05 pm

ELB wrote: Tue May 25, 2021 3:21 pm GOA's summary of bill: https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-fin ... es-it-say/

Assuming Gov. Abbott signs HB 1927

If he doesn't after saying he would, he is making the most serious political mistake of his career as he is about to start campaigning for re-election.

that was my thinking, if he defaults and does nothing it makes him look even weaker.
i think we have a few contenders that can adjust him on the podium of political races

I believe unless he vetoes it, it becomes law at the end of the current legislative session. He will sign it.

June 20th, if he hasn't vetoed it by then it becomes law. The law itself does not take effect obviously until Sept 1st.

https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/Dates-of-Interest.pdf

Yes, thanks. I thought it was some time period presumably related to the end of the session.

I am curious, what makes anyone think that Governor Abbott wouldn't sign the HB 1927?

EDITED TO ADD:

I am NOT one of those, I asked the question because a couple of others seemed to think that, and I wanted to know why. I wish one of them had replied and told me why they thought that.

K.Mooneyham wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 1:02 am I am curious, what makes anyone think that Governor Abbott wouldn't sign the HB 1927?

I think he's just waiting to get the press conference together with the folks responsible to be in pictures.

K.Mooneyham wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 1:02 am I am curious, what makes anyone think that Governor Abbott wouldn't sign the HB 1927?

The Governor absolutely will sign HB1927. This is not in doubt.

Chas.

Flightmare wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 9:45 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 1:02 am I am curious, what makes anyone think that Governor Abbott wouldn't sign the HB 1927?

I think he's just waiting to get the press conference together with the folks responsible to be in pictures.

Don't be surprised if it takes a while. The 84th legislative session ended on 6/1. The Open Carry and Campus Carry bills weren't signed until June 13th.

Papa_Tiger wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 9:58 am

Flightmare wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 9:45 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 1:02 am I am curious, what makes anyone think that Governor Abbott wouldn't sign the HB 1927?

I think he's just waiting to get the press conference together with the folks responsible to be in pictures.

Don't be surprised if it takes a while. The 84th legislative session ended on 6/1. The Open Carry and Campus Carry bills weren't signed until June 13th.

And signed with a bit of fanfare at 2A-friendly locations (e.g. Red’s Indoor Range in Pflugerville), just for the optics.

Stuff like that takes time to negotiate and set up.

Man, there seems to be a truck load of confusion as to exactly how Constitutional Carry is going to impact CHL/LTC going forward. Is this going to be like open carry was a few years ago? After the new wore off it was no longer an issue. I rarely see someone openly carrying anymore.

Does the LTC trump Constitutional Carry or the other way around? If we are given a verbal notice than signage doesn't matter at the point. But I do think the 30.05 verbage could have been more specific. Maybe it would be appropriate to add the verbage like the signs on alcohol consumption have, "the unlicensed possession/carrying of a firearm". I can see businesses putting up a 30.05 thinking that covers all the bases when it actually doesn't. I think the wording is too vague. I would like to know how LTC holders profit from Constitutional Carry. Does it expand in any way where we can carry?

cowhow wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 1:17 pm Man, there seems to be a truck load of confusion as to exactly how Constitutional Carry is going to impact CHL/LTC going forward. Is this going to be like open carry was a few years ago? After the new wore off it was no longer an issue. I rarely see someone openly carrying anymore.

Does the LTC trump Constitutional Carry or the other way around? If we are given a verbal notice than signage doesn't matter at the point. But I do think the 30.05 verbage could have been more specific. Maybe it would be appropriate to add the verbage like the signs on alcohol consumption have, "the unlicensed possession/carrying of a firearm". I can see businesses putting up a 30.05 thinking that covers all the bases when it actually doesn't. I think the wording is too vague. I would like to know how LTC holders profit from Constitutional Carry. Does it expand in any way where we can carry?

My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.

I can see businesses putting up a 30.05 thinking that covers all the bases when it actually doesn't.

Good. I want businesses to think all their bases are covered with one sign. Another benefit to keeping one's LTC.

ScottDLS wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 2:41 pm My read on it is if you want to exclude non-LTC carriers, you post a 30.05. If you want to exclude LTC you post 30.05 and 30.06/7. If you just post 30.06/7, then a LTC holder can carry because they are not carrying under the authority of their LTC. Similar to a Peace Officer (who happens to also have a LTC) openly carrying past a 30.07, or concealing past a 30.06.

This is going to be a mess. So under the new law, we can just ignore those gazillion 30.06/07 signs already out there because we won't be carrying "under the authority of our LTC." Conversely, if we see a 30.05, we can ignore it, too, and carry under the authority of our LTC.

Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I was criticized by an "gun expert" for posting the above comments on another gun forum. He said the new law states that .06 signs will also apply to non-LTC carriers, which is utterly false, and suggested I read the law so I won't appear "uneducated." If gun enthusiasts are that confused, a LOT of people out there, especially non-shooter lay peoplek and business owners, won't be able to make sense of all this.

Ruark wrote: Wed May 26, 2021 3:07 pm Apparently, the only way a business can preclude ALL carrying is to post ALL THREE signs: 05, 06 and 07. Given the size of these signs, that's going to mean a whole WALL of signage at many entrances, which will be very unpopular. Many places, e.g. hospitals, have big, elaborate 06/07 signs mounted in glass frames and bolted onto stone walls, with no room for anything else.

I seem to have misplaced my sympathy.

That's the price they will have to pay for excluding law abiding citizens from carrying... I mean they could have no signage and keep the entrances pretty and not incur any more risk than they already do by only letting the bad guys carry.