TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.

mojo84 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.

Thank you!

So for everyone stating that walking past a 30.06/30.07 after the amendment to 910 goes into effect is a class A, even if you didn't see it, then what was the intent of the amendment in the first place?

locke_n_load wrote:So for everyone stating that walking past a 30.06/30.07 after the amendment to 910 goes into effect is a class A, even if you didn't see it, then what was the intent of the amendment in the first place?

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C [A] misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

tomtexan wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So for everyone stating that walking past a 30.06/30.07 after the amendment to 910 goes into effect is a class A, even if you didn't see it, then what was the intent of the amendment in the first place?

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C [A] misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

Yes, I know what the text says. People are differing in their interpretation of said text.

locke_n_load wrote:

tomtexan wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So for everyone stating that walking past a 30.06/30.07 after the amendment to 910 goes into effect is a class A, even if you didn't see it, then what was the intent of the amendment in the first place?

(d) An offense under this section is a Class C [A] misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that, after entering the property, the license holder received notice as described by Subsection (b) and subsequently failed to depart.

Yes, I know what the text says. People are differing in their interpretation of said text.

Pretty simple to me...if an individual isn't an idiot the most they will be charged with is a Class C. If they are an idiot (like the guy in the skirt at the capital wearing a blue gun who refused to leave after being asked several times) they are likely to be charged with a Class A.
A little oversimplified I know, but a police officer would much rather write you a ticket than arrest you and do all the paperwork associated with a trial. Remember, in order for it to be a Class A it has to be shown at trial that you failed to leave after you received noticed. It's just way easier to write a ticket.

mojo84 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.

Thank you sir.

G.A. Heath wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.

Thank you sir.

Welcome. Did you guys find it on the video? The part where Phillips takes Strickland to the woodshed starts at about the 1:33:00 of the second video.

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=10745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original 1 mil population was amendment #8 which was tabled after #9 (750K pop.) was adopted, so #9 was ineffectual.

Wait! What about the amendment to the amendment that amended the amendment? (grin)

It was amended.

For those questioning what the amendment lowering the 30.06 penalty from a Class A to a Class C really means, start watching at 1:24:00.
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=10745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reminds me of some Marx Brothers skits.

The party of the first part shall be known...

etc etc

down til 'Everybody knows there ain't no sanity clause!'

I heard from a couple sources that what the non-germane amendment that Stickland was trying to get introduced Friday was to remove fees for a Texas CHL, ie free CHL. In a way it would get even closer to the constitutional carry/no-infringement goal the OC gang has desires on seeing or more likely torpedo CHL-Open carry for this session. He would also have record to run on to show who voted against "his" version/amendment that denied Texas OC.

If this is true, I can see why the whole Stickland side show needed to go down in flames with regards to HB-910. Weird if true.

jmra wrote:For those questioning what the amendment lowering the 30.06 penalty from a Class A to a Class C really means, start watching at 1:24:00.
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=10745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks very much for posting. Very clear what it means.

mojo84 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.

Thank you sir.

Welcome. Did you guys find it on the video? The part where Phillips takes Strickland to the woodshed starts at about the 1:33:00 of the second video.

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=10745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes sir. I have the sound byte ready, and I am still working on my show notes, but it will be in Episode 55 of my podcast.

Looking forward to hearing it.