I am liking HB910 / SB346

[AJSully421]

I am really liking HB910 and SB346!

Preserves 30.06 for CHL, and creates 30.07 for open carry.

First, it changes a few words in Sec. 30.06... thus making every single current 30.06 sign in the state instantly non-compliant and unenforceable on 9/1/15. So those panty wearing liberals will have to rub two brain cells together and figure out that change and post new signs to restrict righteous citizens' God-given rights.

Next, it creates 30.07 to restrict open carry only. So now, they must waste time and space to post both signs in a compliant manner to restrict both methods of carry. Most will choose only one, and will most likely pick 30.07, thus not restricting CC (which I will CC 99.9% of the time).

I like it! CALL YOUR REPS!!!

[jmra]

Too bad OCT has all but killed any chance of any OC bill passing. Just wait and see what they do if a licensed OC bill gets any traction.

[mr1337]

I think they had the right idea with 30.07(b)(3)(B)(iii) where it says the sign should be "displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property." (emphasis mine)

I would love to get that phrase into 30.06 as well. A sign might be clearly visible to the public, but might not be at each entrance, causing some people to be in violation unknowingly.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think they had the right idea with 30.07(b)(3)(B)(iii) where it says the sign should be "displayed in a conspicuous manner
clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property." (emphasis mine)

I would love to get that phrase into 30.06 as well. A sign might be clearly visible to the public, but might not be at each entrance, causing some people to be in violation unknowingly.

Is a person in violation if they have not seen the sign? If you Have 5 entrances to your business and post signs at 4 of those entrances, and I enter through the unposted entrance, I have not received proper notice, and I am not in violation. If I receive proper notice AFTER I am already inside, then as long as I leave immediately upon receiving that notice, then I am not in violation either.

Sec. 30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.
(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

• (1) carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent; and
  (2) received notice that:
  • (A) entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden; or
    (B) remaining on the property with a concealed handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.
(c) In this section:

• (1) "Entry" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.05(b).
  (2) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035(f).
  (3) "Written communication" means:
  • (A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
    (B) a sign posted on the property that:
    • (i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
      (ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
      (iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Etc., etc., etc. If I have not had a reasonable opportunity to see the sign, because you did not reasonably post one at the entrance through which I entered, then until I am given proper notice I am not in violation. If leave immediately upon receiving such notice, then I am not in violation.

You will beat the time, but maybe not the ride. Kinda depends on how big of a butthead your local chief of pd or the da is.

[mr1337]

I still think it's a biiiig grey area.

One of the key line here is this:

(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral or written communication.

They are defining "received notice" here as the owner "providing notice." In order to provide notice, the owner (or person with authority) must orally tell you that concealed handguns are prohibited, or they can provide written communication.

(3) "Written communication" means:
(A) a card or other document on which is written language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun"; or
(B) a sign posted on the property that:
(i) includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
(ii) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

In order to provide written notice, there must be a sign posted that:
i. includes the language in both English and Spanish
ii. appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
and
iii. is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

If all of those are met, the property has "provided notice."

There's nothing saying that the owner or person with authority needs to post it at every entrance in order to provide notice.

If a business has a valid 30.06 sign posted in a conspicuous manner, but I choose to not look at the sign or if I choose to close my eyes while walking in, the business has still provided notice, and by extension and definition in this section, I have received notice. Just because I ignore the sign (inadvertently or not), the business has provided notice. And according to 30.06(b), providing notice is the only thing needed for it to be deemed that you have received notice. It doesn't say that you have received notice when you see the sign. You have received notice when the business has provided notice. This is just my literal interpretation and of course, I'm no lawyer.

And as you said, you may be able to beat the rap, but not the ride. If it's true that you really did enter through an entrance that was not marked, you might be able to avoid jail if the court can't prove mens rea.

[Libertexan]

I am new to this forum so forgive me if this question has been asked but...The language in 30.07 includes "oral" communication by anyone with apparent authority to act. Does this mean that any employee may simply say "sorry, no open carry here" thus obligating me to leave? Otherwise I like the addition of 30.07.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am new to this forum so forgive me if this question has been asked but...The language in 30.07 includes "oral" communication by anyone with apparent authority to act. Does this mean that any employee may simply say "sorry, no open carry here" thus obligating me to leave? Otherwise I like the addition of 30.07.

Welcome to the Forum.

Oral notice must be given by someone with authority or apparent authority. This wouldn't be every single employee as they must have some authority to tell customers they cannot enter or must leave. It could be very difficult for the customer to decipher under some circumstances. With concealed-carry, it has never been an issue. Open-carry would likely see some business owners not posting 30.07 signs and instead simply telling open-carriers to leave.

Chas.

[RetNavy]

I would love to get that phrase into 30.06 as well. A sign might be clearly visible to the public, but might not be at each entrance, causing some people to be in violation unknowingly.

When I was in Beaumont, couple weeks ago, wife needed somethings from GNC, closet one was in Parkdale Mall... first pass by couple of entrances didnot see any signs.... as I parked and got out of my car about 100 ft from a mall entrance notice what seemed to be a gun buster sysmbol... back in car to drive closer to inspect and yep... valid 30.06... wife needed her stuff so parked and disarmed... GNC was waaaay down by Macy store... but from what i could see the mall entrance from Macy did not have a posted sign..... did the parking entrance to Macy have one... don't know... didnt check.... if knowing that the GNC store was closer to Macy and not the way i entered... and entered through Macy would I be in violation... probably... as a sign was posted...

I agree with mr1337... each entrance should be posted.... and with others a violation should not be a CLass A but a Class C

[TVGuy]

Hopefully Charles will read this and can shed some light, but I'm interested in all responses.

Now that SB 17 has passed out of committee and will be going to the floor, it appears it is assured to be passed.

As of this writing, HB 910 (its companion bill in the House) has a total of 75 authors and co-authors. Is it all but certain licensed open carry will be the law of the land in Texas by the end of the year?

I'm feeling more comfortable about it than I have at any time in the past. What about you.

[Winchster]

910 has to survive a committee first. Then I'll be with ya.

[TVGuy]

910 has to survive a committee first. Then I'll be with ya.

It should help that the bill's author is the Chair of the committee, there are 3 other co-authors of the bill on the committee and of the five that are neither authors or co-authors two are Republicans.

I'm just saying I'm more optimistic than I was a month ago when Kory was going berserk and the Capitol.

[Winchster]

And we know Strauss will assign it to said committee? If so then I'm all kinds of excited.

[TVGuy]

And we know Strauss will assign it to said committee? If so then I'm all kinds of excited.

That's Homeland Security & Public Safety...I believe that's where it died before and the logical place for it to go.

[Charles L. Cotton]

And we know Strauss will assign it to said committee? If so then I'm all kinds of excited.

If he doesn't, than it would be strange indeed. HB910 will clear committee, then Calendars Committee becomes the issue.

Chas.

[Winchster]

And we know Strauss will assign it to said committee? If so then I'm all kinds of excited.

If he doesn't, than it would be strange indeed. HB910 will clear committee, then Calendars Committee becomes the issue.

Chas.

We don't happen to have a friend in calendars do we? Lol