SB342: OCT/NAGR SeSate Bill: BAD BILL.

[G.A. Heath]

So I was at work when SB342 was introduced, and just now have had time to start looking it over. I quickly noticed while it is supposed to be their companion bill to HB195, it is quite different. So I decided to check it out. First thing I did was a quick search for "30.06" and got taken to SECTION 11 where it makes significant changes to 30.06. At that point I no longer had an interest in reading further. I assume Charles will go over it in detail and find the other no-go parts but as far as I am concerned it's a bad bill.

The changes to 30.06 would require oral notification or both written and oral notification, so I suspect that the legislature most likely will not go for it.

[RoyGBiv]

You read it correctly. This bill would make a 30.06 sign the tool for excluding both OC and CHL.

DOA unless fixed.

[CleverNickname]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

Although, that does bring up an interesting question as to what "oral communication" is, even under current law. PC 30.06(c)(3) defines "written communication" but I don't see a definition for "oral communication". Does it include recorded audio, or only a real live person giving notification? I'm assuming that, for example, a periodic announcement over a PA system would probably count. But then, you'd be getting into other issues like how often the announcement was made, how loud the volume on the PA system is, and possibly even whether the announcement was also made in Spanish.

E: Also, I wonder what happens if a deaf person with a CHL is orally notified and they don't realize it? Or even, a blind person with a CHL enters a location with a 30.06 sign? Maybe we should require oral and written communication no matter what. We wouldn't want a handicapped person to slip by and unknowingly enter a prohibited area, and potentially place them in legal jeopardy.

Here's the link to the bill text so people don't have to search: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00342I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TVGuy]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

Although, that does bring up an interesting question as to what "oral communication" is, even under current law. PC 30.06(c)(3) defines "written communication" but I don't see a definition for "oral communication". Does it include recorded audio, or only a real live person giving notification? I'm assuming that, for example, a periodic announcement over a PA system would probably count. But then, you'd be getting into other issues like how often the announcement was made, how loud the volume on the PA system is, and possibly even whether the announcement was also made in Spanish.

E: Also, I wonder what happens if a deaf person with a CHL is orally notified and they don't realize it? Or even, a blind person with a CHL enters a location with a 30.06 sign? Maybe we should require oral and written communication no matter what. We wouldn't want a handicapped person to slip by and unknowingly enter a prohibited area, and potentially place them in legal jeopardy.

Here's the link to the bill text so people don't have to search: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00342I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

[EEllis]

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

My sister is legally blind without corrective lenses and she can still drive. Blind doesn't mean you cant see.

[MeMelYup]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

Although, that does bring up an interesting question as to what "oral communication" is, even under current law. PC 30.06(c)(3) defines "written communication" but I don't see a definition for "oral communication". Does it include recorded audio, or only a real live person giving notification? I'm assuming that, for example, a periodic announcement over a PA system would probably count. But then, you'd be getting into other issues like how often the announcement was made, how loud the volume on the PA system is, and possibly even whether the announcement was also made in Spanish.

E: Also, I wonder what happens if a deaf person with a CHL is orally notified and they don't realize it? Or even, a blind person with a CHL enters a location with a 30.06 sign? Maybe we should require oral and written communication no matter what. We wouldn't want a handicapped person to slip by and unknowingly enter a prohibited area, and potentially place them in legal jeopardy.

Here's the link to the bill text so people don't have to search: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00342I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

Why, they have the same rights you and I do. They just have a handy cap that would make it up close and personal to them. They can get a hunting license and do hunt here in Texas.

[TVGuy]

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

My sister is legally blind without corrective lenses and she can still drive. Blind doesn't mean you cant see.

Not trying to be against someone with a disability at all here, was a legitimate question.

If she can see well enough to drive, she could see/read a 30.06 sign. Right?

Should someone that can't see a 30.06 sign be carrying a gun in public?

[TVGuy]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

Although, that does bring up an interesting question as to what "oral communication" is, even under current law. PC 30.06(c)(3) defines "written communication" but I don't see a definition for "oral communication". Does it include recorded audio, or only a real live person giving notification? I'm assuming that, for example, a periodic announcement over a PA system would probably count. But then, you'd be getting into other issues like how often the announcement was made, how loud the volume on the PA system is, and possibly even whether the announcement was also made in Spanish.

E: Also, I wonder what happens if a deaf person with a CHL is orally notified and they don't realize it? Or even, a blind person with a CHL enters a location with a 30.06 sign? Maybe we should require oral and written communication no matter what. We wouldn't want a handicapped person to slip by and unknowingly enter a prohibited area, and potentially place them in legal jeopardy.

Here's the link to the bill text so people don't have to search: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00342I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

Why, they have the same rights you and I do. They just have a handy cap that would make it up close and personal to them. They can get a hunting license and do hunt here in Texas.

I never said they don't have the same rights, but if someone can't see even with corrective lenses how would they qualify on the shooting portion of the class.

Someone with dreadfully bad aim has the same rights I do as well, but if they don't qualify on the range they don't get a license.

Never said a word about hunting. I'd like to know if there is a single CHL that is 100% blind even with corrective lenses. I'd say that would be the person described above as not being able to see a 30.06 sign.

[CleverNickname]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

Although, that does bring up an interesting question as to what "oral communication" is, even under current law. PC 30.06(c)(3) defines "written communication" but I don't see a definition for "oral communication". Does it include recorded audio, or only a real live person giving notification? I'm assuming that, for example, a periodic announcement over a PA system would probably count. But then, you'd be getting into other issues like how often the announcement was made, how loud the volume on the PA system is, and possibly even whether the announcement was also made in Spanish.

E: Also, I wonder what happens if a deaf person with a CHL is orally notified and they don't realize it? Or even, a blind person with a CHL enters a location with a 30.06 sign? Maybe we should require oral and written communication no matter what. We wouldn't want a handicapped person to slip by and unknowingly enter a prohibited area, and potentially place them in legal jeopardy.

Here's the link to the bill text so people don't have to search: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00342I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

I imagine the number is not large, but there's probably a few in Texas. There's no statutory prohibition against the blind being licensed (I guess the range test might be a little more difficult, but not impossible by any means) and blind people have gotten licenses in other states.

[EEllis]

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

My sister is legally blind without corrective lenses and she can still drive. Blind doesn't mean you cant see.

Not trying to be against someone with a disability at all here, was a legitimate question.

If she can see well enough to drive, she could see/read a 30.06 sign. Right?

Should someone that can't see a 30.06 sign be carrying a gun in public?

You can have trouble reading a sign and still see, shoot, and hit an man sized target at close distances. Sure the person would have to be very careful but...... and heck if I don't wear my glasses I would have to get real close to a 30.06 sign to actually be able to read it.

[juno106]

“Yes,” I know a totally blind TX CHL holder and “No,” it is not a bad idea”. But then again, I personally know a handful of blind individuals with permits/licenses from various states. It gets interesting when they have to go in-person with their seeing eye dog to the appropriate law enforcement agency to submit their application.

Are there any blind CHLs? Sounds like a bad idea.

True.

Why, they have the same rights you and I do. They just have a handy cap that would make it up close and personal to them.

If they’ve met the same requirements as a non-blind individual, on what legal basis should they be denied a constitutional right?

Should someone that can't see a 30.06 sign be carrying a gun in public?

Muscle memory.

I never said they don't have the same rights, but if someone can't see even with corrective lenses how would they qualify on the shooting portion of the class.

Agreed.

Someone with dreadfully bad aim has the same rights I do as well, but if they don't qualify on the range they don't get a license.

"Yes,” and “Yes”

I'd like to know if there is a single CHL that is 100% blind even with corrective lenses. I'd say that would be the person described above as not being able to see a 30.06 sign.

I also imagine the number is not large, and would “assume” that if their ADA-protected disability were “visible” (i.e., they were traveling with a white cane, or seeing-eye dog), that they would have to be provided with “oral notification” or, I suppose it could be argued, a Braille “written notification”.

If this ever were to wind up in court, by invoking the ADA, and that the blind/disabled are a protected class under Federal law, this could get very interesting, very quickly.

Charlie, would you care to opine?

I imagine the number is not large, but there's probably a few in Texas. There's no statutory prohibition against the blind being licensed (I guess the range test might be a little more difficult, but not impossible by any means) and blind people have gotten licenses in other states.

[G.A. Heath]

I suspect that the requirement for Oral Notification will kill SB 342 for a few simple reasons.
#1: Would you want to confront Kory Watkins, and his bunch, to tell them they can not carry on your (or your employers) property?
#2: Property Owners Rights are as important to the legislature as Gun Rights. Why should all signs be meaningless?
#3: The confrontation in Poncho Nevarez's Office (See #1)
#4: What language would need to be used in Oral Communication? "You can't bring that in here" might be confusing to a carrier while "We do not allow guns in here" isn't.

Now that OCT is pushing two similar bills they run the risk of alienating those who support one bill or the other,. If I were a legislator that agreed to support HB195, and suddenly read that SB342 is significantly different I might feel like a victim of a bait and switch should I be asked/expected to support SB342. Now OCT imagine the extremely unlikely scenario that both bills make it out of their respective houses in their current forms. OCT needs to try and get both versions approved in both houses in case one dies in the other house. If they had filed a true companion bill they would save valuable and limited political capital that they will be forced to waste with pushing two different bills.

[Beiruty]

What is wrong with a Gunbuster for OC and 30.06 for CHLers?

[Dave09]

What is wrong with a Gunbuster for OC and 30.06 for CHLers?

Thats what i would prefer myself. Where they just have a standard Gunbuster sign or even any gun buster sign as long as it was a certain size for OC only. That way 30.06 remains just for CC only. Unless im missing something thats what seems ideal.

[G.A. Heath]

Historically the OC community wants 30.06 to apply to OC because they know it will be banned on a massive scale otherwise. They do not understand that will not stop businesses from doing so. The CHL community want's to keep 30.06 free of OC so that it is not more widely deployed.