Texas Constitutional Carry - Thoughts?

[Wildcat Diva]

It's ok. There was a part there that was unclear in what I said.

I'm actually amazed that we trust 15 year olds to drive cars but we waffle at the thought of a responsible adult with the means to defend himself. Hell, the youngsters we are worried about are already packing heat, probably.

 

[V-Tach]

TXI thank you for your answers.......

Those posts took quite a bit of time and effort.......

 

[txinvestigator]

TXI thank you for your answers.......

Those posts took quite a bit of time and effort.......

You're welcome. Seemed like the guy really didn't understand how bills work. I was honestly trying to help him.

 

[locke_n_load]

My thoughts.
Even if 1911 passes, I believe a gunbuster sign will be all that is needed to invoke 30.05 for criminal trespass. I don't know many stores that don't have generic gunbuster signs up, but I am going to keep an eye out and see (since I don't normally look for them).
That would mean that a good majority of businesses would be off-limits for unlicensed carry. Carrying past a gunbuster sign w/out license would be trespassing, and it would be a class A misdemeanor since it involves a deadly weapon. So no more right to carry or ability to get a license for 5 years after conviction.
Sounds like a good incentive to get a license. Unless 1911 addresses this.

 

[txinvestigator]

My thoughts.
Even if 1911 passes, I believe a gunbuster sign will be all that is needed to invoke 30.05 for criminal trespass. I don't know many stores that don't have generic gunbuster signs up, but I am going to keep an eye out and see (since I don't normally look for them).
That would mean that a good majority of businesses would be off-limits for unlicensed carry. Carrying past a gunbuster sign w/out license would be trespassing, and it would be a class A misdemeanor since it involves a deadly weapon. So no more right to carry or ability to get a license for 5 years after conviction.
Sounds like a good incentive to get a license. Unless 1911 addresses this.

You haven't read the bill, have you?

 

[locke_n_load]

You haven't read the bill, have you?

I've been following Terry Holcomb on facebook and trying to keep track of the changes, but the texas leg site only has the introduced version, and I know the bill has been changed a few times now.

I remember him saying that there wouldn't be any 30.08 signs and a gunbuster would invoke 30.05.

 

[locke_n_load]

And I know initially that they were modifying 06/07 to apply to both non-license and license holders, but I don't think that is what made it out of committee.

 

[Maverick44]

I understand how the bill is written, underscores and such, current and changes. It is written to modify existing law written around LTC but much of it is irrelevant if passed. Why 25? 18-25 is a troublesome period, after that persons are more 'normal', or career crooks, party animals, druggies, etc. Also kinda solves the campus carry situation. I consider getting CHL/LTC, not a problem - but carry is a big responsibility/liability to lawful persons. I listened to the HB375 committee to get the attitude of both sides. LE is definitely against armed citizenry i.e., they only want to have to fight the bad guys. Back in the 50's I carried a 22 rifle down main street to go shoot at the rock quarry (in the city, my buddy had his 30/30) and nobody blinked an eye. Mom would have called the cops if she knew but she has always been anti-gun.
basically the percentage of bad actors in society has increased drastically and I'm not sure that LE will/can handle the situation with non-bad guys properly.

1. Your comment about 18-25 being too troublesome to be trusted with a gun is pure bullshit. The overwhelming majority of people that age aren't going to be out popping off rounds at each other, and the ones that would do it will do it regardless of the law. You trust that age group to protect this country, so why shouldn't they enjoy the same rights as you?

2. There is no "campus carry situation". There are not shooting on campus every other weak like the libtards said there would be. It's be uneventful. There is absolutely no logical reason to take that away.

3. Carry is a right, not a privilege. I shouldn't need a license to exercise a God given right.

4. LEOs are definitely not against armed citizens. I have plenty of first hand experience with talking to officers, reading what they say online, watching their vlogs on youtube. Most officers are completely for armed citizens.

5. The violent crime rate has been dropping for about 20 years, and will most likely continue to do so. The streets of America are far safer than you think. The media just likes to stir stuff up.

6. Sadly, that side of your mom rubbed off on you a bit. Anyone under 25 shouldn't be allowed to carry? What kind of antigun bullshit is that?

 

[TheDan]

I prefer the Socratic method of finding truth...

shit just got real

 

[TheDan]

Unfortunately, a vocal minority called and browbeat lawmakers trying to get HB375 passed - and that ticked 'em off.

Why are they so thin skinned and spiteful?

 

[45tex]

Your quote got messed up, but I can help you. First, here is the actual text from the bill in regards to 46.15(b)



What that section does is make carry lawful for ANYONE who would qualify for a license to carry without a license. Non-applicability does not mean that you have to Prove you meet the non-applicability. I suppose it would mean that if LEO had reason to contact you that they could run a criminal history and if you had a disqualifying record they could arrest you.

Well, lets look at that. When you read the text of a bill, any text that is not underlined or struck out IS ALREADY IN THE LAW AND NOT BEING CHANGED. Since this forum will not allow the use of strikethrough text, it converts strikethrough to bracketed text; therefore, in the bold section below the text bracketed [like this] is actually struck out.

SECTION 7. Sections 411.201(c), (e), and (h), Government
Code, are amended to read as follows:
(c) An active judicial officer is eligible for a license to
carry a handgun under [the authority of] this subchapter. A retired
judicial officer is eligible for a license to carry a handgun under
[the authority of] this subchapter if the officer:

All that section of the bill does is change wording. It actually says that an Active or retired Judicial Officer Officer is eligible for an LTC if they meet certain requirements. Where do you see that it makes them not need an LTC, in that section?



That is NO CHANGE from the current law. The part you see underlined is the only part added. They added that so once the bill passes, and non-licensed people can carry, the right of an employer to restrict handgun carry by employees will extend to those who are carrying without a license.
Exactly the same as it is now. Again, text that is not underscored or struck through IS IN THE CURRENT LAW. All this section does is require non-licensees to display ID if carrying, if the bill passes.
already in the current laws. Extends this to non-licensees carrying if the bill passes.
Already law. This part of the bill extends this law to those who might carry if the bill were to pass. Starting to see a pattern here?
This is ALREADY LAW, this section of the bill adds that protection to people who might carry without a license if the bill passes
Pay attention to the underscores (adds new text) and the strickthroughs (deletes current text). This is already law and simply adds unlicensed carry to the current law.
Already in the law, this bill deletes sections and adds section to accommodate unlicensed carry.
Where do you see anything about wardens and dove hunting in section 33 of the bill?


Dude, this bill is ABOUT this very thing. That is the reason the bill exists. In fact, if you read the FIRST SENTENCE OF THE BILL, "A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to granting authority to carry a firearm to an unlicensed
person

Peace officers can disarm you NOW, today. That law already exists. Again, with what you have learned now about the structure of bills in regards to strikethroughs, underscores and normal text, you can see that only some of that is new and some has been removed in the bill.


Now that you have learned how to read bills properly, you know that there is nothing rash about statements that this bill allows unlicensed carry, if passed.

Thanks, and have a great day!

This post really helped me understand, since I had my hopes the the 375 basket. Thank You

 

[Vaquero]

Why are they so thin skinned and spiteful?

Yep.

 

[Brian Boru]

Update from Stickland

Jonathan Stickland

4 hrs ·

HB 375 Constitutional Carry Update/ACTION ALERT:
Five of the nine members of the Homeland Security Committee have publicly stated that they would vote yes on HB 375 (which is currently the strongest written 2nd amendment bill in the legislature) if given the chance. That is enough to pass the bill.


It can only be brought up for a vote by one person, Chairman Phil King, who so far has been unwilling to do so. One of the reasons he stated he hasn't is because our Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has issues with its current form. He shouldn't if he truly supports constitutional carry. If this is not true then he should clarify he is not opposing our bill publicly.



If you care about this issue we need you to act immediately. Time runs out next week. Please respectfully call the following:


Chairman Phil King (512) 463-0738
"Please bring HB 375 up for a vote in committee before Tuesday, April 25th"



We need you to make the calls immediately. #onward

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

Update from Stickland

I told y'all king is a punk. He's an embarrassment to my district.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[busykngt]

Call made (with all due respect) to Representative Phil King's office.
Thanks for posting that Brian!

 

[45tex]

Phil King is the John Cornyn of the Texas Legislature. Biggest RINO in the state. Only because Cornyn is only ever in state to glad hand old people at the homes who should know better. He is their King, Phil King that is.

The reason why we the people want term limits.

 

[locke_n_load]

So the Committee Substitute for HB1911 was released today.

looks like a gunbuster bars unlicensed carry, and carry past that is a class C
belt or shoulder holster changed to just "holster"
30.06/07 mainly unchanged.

 

[busykngt]

Could always just post a link...


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

 

[locke_n_load]

Could always just post a link...


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

It's a folder in a closed group on facebook, doubt that would help. But I messed up reading last night - bill does not add exemptions for ltc/authorized from 03 or 035.

 

[ussoldier1984]

So the Committee Substitute for HB1911 was released today.

looks like a gunbuster bars unlicensed carry, and carry past that is a class C
belt or shoulder holster changed to just "holster"
30.06/07 mainly unchanged.

Trying to follow this topic and research but some of this legal terminology and wording is confusing me. Could you break it down a bit so I understand more clearly?