TexasCHLforum.com

Great bill. Huge victory for law abiding carriers.

Rrash wrote:Keep in mind this will go into effect on Sept 1, while 30.07 will not be valid until Jan 1, 2016. I don't know how many municipalities will take down 30.06, only to later post 30.07 signage knowing that it will be coming down in 2017. I guess there might be a few, but that seems pretty stupid. The best thing we can do is to notify them before Jan 1, so they will have to comply.

Seems like the underlined section below would cover any potential 30.07 issues. Though who knows with municipalities that are already refusing to comply with the current laws.

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license

The 30.07 language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.07,
Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this
property with a handgun that is carried openly"

txyaloo wrote:

Rrash wrote:Keep in mind this will go into effect on Sept 1, while 30.07 will not be valid until Jan 1, 2016. I don't know how many municipalities will take down 30.06, only to later post 30.07 signage knowing that it will be coming down in 2017. I guess there might be a few, but that seems pretty stupid. The best thing we can do is to notify them before Jan 1, so they will have to comply.

Seems like the underlined section below would cover any potential 30.07 issues. Though who knows with municipalities that are already refusing to comply with the current laws.

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license

The 30.07 language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.07,
Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this
property with a handgun that is carried openly"

Sounds logical.

Broad enough language to cover the future existence of a 30.07 (which does not exist at the time this bill is passed, and would not exist when this bill goes into effect) such that if 30.07 were included, it would be prohibiting a non-existent thing, but language which is broad enough to cover 30.07, (or 30.08 or 30.09 etc etc) anyway should it exist later, as long as they have a CHL.

NotRPB wrote:

txyaloo wrote:

Rrash wrote:Keep in mind this will go into effect on Sept 1, while 30.07 will not be valid until Jan 1, 2016. I don't know how many municipalities will take down 30.06, only to later post 30.07 signage knowing that it will be coming down in 2017. I guess there might be a few, but that seems pretty stupid. The best thing we can do is to notify them before Jan 1, so they will have to comply.

Seems like the underlined section below would cover any potential 30.07 issues. Though who knows with municipalities that are already refusing to comply with the current laws.

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license

The 30.07 language:

"Pursuant to Section 30.07,
Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried
handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this
property with a handgun that is carried openly"

Sounds logical.

Broad enough language to cover the future existence of a 30.07 (which does not exist at the time this bill is passed, and would not exist when this bill goes into effect) such that if 30.07 were included, it would be prohibiting a non-existent thing, but language which is broad enough to cover 30.07, (or 30.08 or 30.09 etc etc) anyway should it exist later, as long as they have a CHL.

The only problem I see with this is that after final approval of HB910, it will no longer be a "chl" but a "handgun license." However, the language quoted above and the language underlined below may be broad enough to include it. The language below does not say a "concealed handgun" but rather a "handgun."

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) state agency or a political subdivision of
the state may not provide notice by a communication described by
Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to
that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder
carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is
prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place
owned or leased by the governmental entity...

The language below does not say a "concealed handgun" but rather a "handgun."

I like that.

I also like a concept of (some day) open carry handguns having the same license currently required for openly carried long guns now.

Rationale:
perhaps if > only concealed need license, open carry no license like long arms?
Then, criminals concealing without a license (because they don't pass background checks & don't get licenses anyway, and conceal to not draw attention to themselves anyway) can be charged with UCW/Unauthorized Concealed Weapon/ or whatever.
And law abiding people won't be hindered in their every day activities.
Good dream for future anyway.

The only problem I see with this is that after final approval of HB910, it will no longer be a "chl" but a "handgun license."

This is true! In fact, with the passage of 910, the entire concept of a "CHL" is no longer completely valid. I wonder if they'll change the wording on the license itself.

Ruark wrote:

The only problem I see with this is that after final approval of HB910, it will no longer be a "chl" but a "handgun license."

This is true! In fact, with the passage of 910, the entire concept of a "CHL" is no longer completely valid. I wonder if they'll change the wording on the license itself.

I wasn't able to locate it but I faintly remember reading some DPS impact analysis on OC where several times they used the terms "handgun license" and "Texas handgun license" in lieu of "Concealed Handgun License". I guess we'll know in a few months, eh?

K5GU wrote:

Ruark wrote:

The only problem I see with this is that after final approval of HB910, it will no longer be a "chl" but a "handgun license."

This is true! In fact, with the passage of 910, the entire concept of a "CHL" is no longer completely valid. I wonder if they'll change the wording on the license itself.

I wasn't able to locate it but I faintly remember reading some DPS impact analysis on OC where several times they used the terms "handgun license" and "Texas handgun license" in lieu of "Concealed Handgun License". I guess we'll know in a few months, eh?

Hm, I like the term THL. Then again, any form of the term "handgun license" ambiguous - we all know it means license to carry, but others might think it means a license to own or purchase. I could go with LCH or LBA - License to Carry a Handgun or License to Bear Arms.

Does this mean we'll have to rename the forum?

TrueFlog wrote:

K5GU wrote:

Ruark wrote:

The only problem I see with this is that after final approval of HB910, it will no longer be a "chl" but a "handgun license."

This is true! In fact, with the passage of 910, the entire concept of a "CHL" is no longer completely valid. I wonder if they'll change the wording on the license itself.

I wasn't able to locate it but I faintly remember reading some DPS impact analysis on OC where several times they used the terms "handgun license" and "Texas handgun license" in lieu of "Concealed Handgun License". I guess we'll know in a few months, eh?

Hm, I like the term THL. Then again, any form of the term "handgun license" ambiguous - we all know it means license to carry, but others might think it means a license to own or purchase. I could go with LCH or LBA - License to Carry a Handgun or License to Bear Arms.

Does this mean we'll have to rename the forum?

I don't know about renaming the forum, but maybe after HB910 goes to the Gov. a new thread for "Concealed and Open Carry". Or maybe someone will start a new forum site called "Texas HG Forum" or "Texas HGL Forum" ?

TrueFlog wrote:

K5GU wrote:

Ruark wrote:

The only problem I see with this is that after final approval of HB910, it will no longer be a "chl" but a "handgun license."

This is true! In fact, with the passage of 910, the entire concept of a "CHL" is no longer completely valid. I wonder if they'll change the wording on the license itself.

I wasn't able to locate it but I faintly remember reading some DPS impact analysis on OC where several times they used the terms "handgun license" and "Texas handgun license" in lieu of "Concealed Handgun License". I guess we'll know in a few months, eh?

Hm, I like the term THL. Then again, any form of the term "handgun license" ambiguous - we all know it means license to carry, but others might think it means a license to own or purchase. I could go with LCH or LBA - License to Carry a Handgun or License to Bear Arms.

Does this mean we'll have to rename the forum?

Maybe keep it CHL - Carry Handgun License

SB273 reported enrolled...