TexasCHLforum.com

So would a valid 30.06 ALSO prohibit open carry under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Doubt if I would ever open carry but this would eliminate the fear that if my shirt happens to ride up and expose the gun for a second, some citizen can call the police and I be charged with brandishing a weapon costing me my license. OC provides a little more peace of mind for the CHL holder.

jimlongley wrote:OC would be OK but not CC?

Thats how I read it, especially as the 30.06 sign specifically states "concealed" on it

Hoi Polloi wrote:under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Not all OC'ers would be CHL'ers
Also, if I were both, and I was carrying Concealed, then I would have to follow CHL Laws
If i was OC'ing, then CHL laws would mean nothing

Teamless wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Not all OC'ers would be CHL'ers

I haven't had any coffee yet, but I think you would have to have a CHL to OC. Here's where I'm getting that from:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a
handgun to openly carry the handgun.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. (a) Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are
repealed.
(b) Section 411.171(3), Government Code, is repealed.
SECTION 2. Section 11.041(a), Alcoholic Beverage Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Each holder of a permit who is not otherwise required to
display a sign under Section 411.204, Government Code, shall
display in a prominent place on the permit holder's premises a sign
giving notice that it is unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on
the premises unless the weapon is a [concealed] handgun of the same
category the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code.

Hoi Polloi wrote:So would a valid 30.06 ALSO prohibit open carry under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Correct.

Chas.

kjolly wrote:Doubt if I would ever open carry but this would eliminate the fear that if my shirt happens to ride up and expose the gun for a second, some citizen can call the police and I be charged with brandishing a weapon costing me my license. OC provides a little more peace of mind for the CHL holder.

Texas does not have a brandishing law and unintentional failure to conceal is not unlawful. Although open-carry supporters have done a pretty good job of making people believe there is a significant threat of being arrested, there are only about 3 or 4 anecdotal reports of it happening.

Chas.

Teamless wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Not all OC'ers would be CHL'ers
Also, if I were both, and I was carrying Concealed, then I would have to follow CHL Laws
If i was OC'ing, then CHL laws would mean nothing

Technically you are correct, but only in terms of the title of the license. Operationally, Texas would go from issuing a license to carry a handgun concealed to issuing a license to carry a handgun openly or concealed.

All laws currently applicable to CHL's would be applicable to persons holding the new license (Texas Handgun License?) whether carrying openly or concealed. (HB2756 repeals Tex. Penal Code §46.035(a) that requires concealment.) An exception would be the TPC §30.06 sign, if the current wording of HB2756 is amended.

Chas.

jimlongley wrote:So, if there was 30.06 sign, but not a gun busters sign, OC would be OK but not CC?

Correct. Herein lies the danger in terms of the willingness of the legislature to require property owners to post two different signs. Two "big ugly signs" would never pass; but leaving 30.06 along and allow open-carriers to be subject to TPC §30.05 is hardly an onerous burden. The generic "no guns" decals are small, cheap, and easily applied.

Chas.

jecsd1 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?

Had HB 2756 been left as originally drafted there would be no concern about 30.06. It was drafted as constitutional carry with no mention of 30.06 but certain "individuals" got their hands on it in League and changed it to licensed OC. Either way, this preoccupation with extra 30.06 signs is as silly as the blood in the streets talk 15 years ago when CHL got started. Think critically and stop believing everything you're fed.

This has nothing do with what I have been “fed” but what I have actual “read’ in the bill.

I am for OC, and beyond that I am for Constituional Carry. I wish someone with the minds (and lawyers) that the TSRA and the NRA would have worked out a bill before Rep. Lavender's bill came about. It surely would have been better written with fewer chances for confusion.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:So would a valid 30.06 ALSO prohibit open carry under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Correct.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jimlongley wrote:So, if there was 30.06 sign, but not a gun busters sign, OC would be OK but not CC?

Correct. Herein lies the danger in terms of the willingness of the legislature to require property owners to post two different signs. Two "big ugly signs" would never pass; but leaving 30.06 along and allow open-carriers to be subject to TPC §30.05 is hardly an onerous burden. The generic "no guns" decals are small, cheap, and easily applied.

Chas.

Is it me or are these answers contradictory? I'm reading one to say a valid 30.06 sign would prohibit open carry while the second response says it wouldn't prohibit it?

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:So would a valid 30.06 ALSO prohibit open carry under this bill since the open carry people will be CHL holders?

Correct.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jimlongley wrote:So, if there was 30.06 sign, but not a gun busters sign, OC would be OK but not CC?

Correct. Herein lies the danger in terms of the willingness of the legislature to require property owners to post two different signs. Two "big ugly signs" would never pass; but leaving 30.06 along and allow open-carriers to be subject to TPC §30.05 is hardly an onerous burden. The generic "no guns" decals are small, cheap, and easily applied.

Chas.

Is it me or are these answers contradictory? I'm reading one to say a valid 30.06 sign would prohibit open carry while the second response says it wouldn't prohibit it?

For the first, If the bill passes as it currently is then 30.06 will apply to both. If the 30.06 provision is dropped from the bill and it passes then the second would apply.

G.A. Heath wrote:For the first, If the bill passes as it currently is then 30.06 will apply to both. If the 30.06 provision is dropped from the bill and it passes then the second would apply.

As it is written now, a 30.06 is required to keep out open carry. If that provision is struck, any gunbuster sign will be sufficient for open carry while a 30.06 will be required for concealed carry. My question is if a 30.06 sign would be one of the many signs that would keep an OC out as well under the updated version. I ask this because the 30.06 sign says it applies to license holders, who will be the only people who OC under the updated version, too.

steveincowtown wrote:

jecsd1 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?

Had HB 2756 been left as originally drafted there would be no concern about 30.06. It was drafted as constitutional carry with no mention of 30.06 but certain "individuals" got their hands on it in League and changed it to licensed OC. Either way, this preoccupation with extra 30.06 signs is as silly as the blood in the streets talk 15 years ago when CHL got started. Think critically and stop believing everything you're fed.

This has nothing do with what I have been “fed” but what I have actual “read’ in the bill.

I am for OC, and beyond that I am for Constituional Carry. I wish someone with the minds (and lawyers) that the TSRA and the NRA would have worked out a bill before Rep. Lavender's bill came about. It surely would have been better written with fewer chances for confusion.

TSRA MEMBERS have been asking for OC support for years. Their response was that they would not push OC until the members wanted it.

When asked "how do you poll the members to see what they want?" they responded with "there us no official polling method."

So then, I ask, how do they have any clue what Texans want?

And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

Drink the Koolaid if you like but some of us know the truth.

Hi, I have a question about the 30-06 law for the building i work in. Who is allowed to search me on private property? How can it be proven that i am carring? On private property, can the property owner stop me with a police officer and ask to frisk me? Is a briefcase part of frisking?

Thanks