Texas Constitutional Carry - Thoughts?

[TexasRedneck]

HB 1911, referred to as Permitless Carry as I read it, nothing to do with Constitutional Carry or Permitless Carry. Allows Gov. officials to carry. Defines how LEO handles those with LTC. Basically, nothing for citizens of Texas. Guess I won't give any $$ to TSRA if they only support this and not HB375. 2 more states just passed permitless carry.

#1 - TSRA supported both bills. We also recognized that 1911 had the best chance to pass this term. We'd have been happy to get either of them, although HB375 WOULD allow more freedoms - something many lawmakers are nervous about giving. Unfortunately, a vocal minority called and browbeat lawmakers trying to get HB375 passed - and that ticked 'em off. Kinda like last session, when Meal Team Six ran about the capitol really getting into faces, to the point that LEO's were called.

Politics isn't fun to play - but if you're gonna win, you gotta play by their rules.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Oh - and HB1911 DOES provide for a CC - just not as strong as many of us would have liked. Thing is - once passed, and folks realize just how much ado there was about nothing, we should be able to get things changed. I'd rather have a partial glass of water that I can add to than nothing.

 

[txinvestigator]

HB 1911, referred to as Permitless Carry as I read it, nothing to do with Constitutional Carry or Permitless Carry. Allows Gov. officials to carry. Defines how LEO handles those with LTC. Basically, nothing for citizens of Texas. Guess I won't give any $$ to TSRA if they only support this and not HB375. 2 more states just passed permitless carry.

You have to fully read the text of the bill. It changes nothing in regards to how Leo's interact or where govt. officials can carry. It DOES change penal code 46.15 (b) and allows anyone who qualifies for a LTC to carry without having to get an LTC.

 

[popper]

Where? allows anyone who qualifies for a LTC to carry without having to get an LTC. Please copy and paste here. You mean this? (6) is [carrying]:

	(A) a license holder [issued] under Subchapter H,
	Chapter 411, Government Code, or a person who meets the
	requirements under Sections 411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code
	[to carry a handgun]; and
	(B) carrying a handgun:
	(i) in a concealed manner; or
	(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster; 411.172 (7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun; - that makes no ense.

So you have to prove you are eligible? Basically more PITA laws created.

sec 1 LTC as ID.
7 judicial officers not required to LTC
8 employers right to prohibit LTC
10 Must display LTC to LEO
12 gun is seized if arrested
13- LEO right to disarm and seize gun if LEO feels threatened ( Bexar, S.A., Travis)
14 Local gov cannot override LTC
28 gun in vehicle
32 display gun in public
33/b/2 travel & hunting. Pretty much as existing, warden could seize if carrying sidearm while dove hunting.
Not a thing in the bill that even implies that LTC is not required to carry. Plus some can make a $34 donation to the 'fund'.

More of a 'confiscation' bill than anything. Some of it makes sense but at LEO discretion is 'bothersome' at the least.
Implies permission for LEO to ask if you have a gun and seize it if he feels 'uncomfortable'. Ys it says LEO 'should' give it back.
Read the darn bill before you make rash statements.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I think we HAVE read it....and discussed it with qualified legal counsel. Bottom line is this - it ain't perfect......but it IS a start. But go ahead and keep demanding HB375 be passed - let us know how that works out.

 

[popper]

I don't carry, probably never will. IMHO age should be 25 & up. IMHO this is a poorly written bill, by the state and is very restrictive, allows too much opinion. HB375 is more direct and could be amended to include the LEO concerns in a less obtuse manner.
Double negatives are never good grammar.

 

[Dash Riprock]

I don't carry, probably never will. IMHO age should be 25 & up. IMHO this is a poorly written bill, by the state and is very restrictive, allows too much opinion. HB375 is more direct and could be amended to include the LEO concerns in a less obtuse manner.

You think it's too restrictive yet you want the minimum carry age raised to 25?

 

[Younggun]

Sigh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[txinvestigator]

Where? allows anyone who qualifies for a LTC to carry without having to get an LTC. Please copy and paste here. You mean this? (6) is [carrying]:
(A) a license holder [issued] under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, or a person who meets the
requirements under Sections 411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code
[to carry a handgun]; and
(B) carrying a handgun:
(i) in a concealed manner; or
(ii) in a shoulder or belt holster;
411.172 (7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun; - that makes no ense.[



So you have to prove you are eligible? Basically more PITA laws created.

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)

SECTION 33. Section 46.15(b), Penal Code, is amended to
read as follows:
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(6) is :
(A) a license holder [issued] under Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, or a person who meets the
requirements under Sections 411.172(a)(1)-(13), Government Code
; and
(B) carrying a handgun:

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.

sec 1 LTC as ID.
7 judicial officers not required to LTC-

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?

8 employers right to prohibit LTC

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.

10 Must display LTC to LEO

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.

12 gun is seized if arrested

already in the current laws. Extends this to non-licensees carrying if the bill passes.

13- LEO right to disarm and seize gun if LEO feels threatened ( Bexar, S.A., Travis)

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?

14 Local gov cannot override LTC

This is ALREADY LAW, this section of the bill adds that protection to people who might carry without a license if the bill passes

28 gun in vehicle

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.

32 display gun in public

Already in the law, this bill deletes sections and adds section to accommodate unlicensed carry.

33/b/2 travel & hunting. Pretty much as existing, warden could seize if carrying sidearm while dove hunting.

Where do you see anything about wardens and dove hunting in section 33 of the bill?

Not a thing in the bill that even implies that LTC is not required to carry. .

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

More of a 'confiscation' bill than anything. Some of it makes sense but at LEO discretion is 'bothersome' at the least.
Implies permission for LEO to ask if you have a gun and seize it if he feels 'uncomfortable'. Ys it says LEO 'should' give it back.

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.

Read the darn bill before you make rash statements.

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!

 

[45tex]

So we have proof once again that Texans holding political office really have their testicles removed prior to their first day. And once they are elected for a second term hormone therapy is stopped. Were this not true 1911 would be simmering and 375 would be set for a vote.
Its also why after a term of chickensh#t republicanism the democrats take over and stick it to us. I hope Abbott doesn't read this it might make him cry.

 

[txinvestigator]

So we have proof once again that Texans holding political office really have their testicles removed prior to their first day. And once they are elected for a second term hormone therapy is stopped. Were this not true 1911 would be simmering and 375 would be set for a vote.
Its also why after a term of chickensh#t republicanism the democrats take over and stick it to us. I hope Abbott doesn't read this it might make him cry.

Baby steps. 21 years ago NO carry was legal.

 

[Younggun]

I doubt Abbott cares what some guy on the internet says.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TexasRedneck]

It's interesting - I've seen this same "argument" against 1911 posted all over the place. It's almost like some group has a written "cheat sheet" for folks to cut and paste.

Nah...they wouldn't do that......<cue theme music to "Meal Team Six">

 

[txinvestigator]

It's interesting - I've seen this same "argument" against 1911 posted all over the place. It's almost like some group has a written "cheat sheet" for folks to cut and paste.

Nah...they wouldn't do that......<cue theme music to "Meal Team Six">

If they were even half right about half of what they claim then they would have an interesting argument. But everything they claim is just wrong.

 

[popper]

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.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

My kid is 17.5. and he's responsible enough to carry. So if he needs to defend himself outside the home before he's 25, he's SOL?
21 is long enough to wait. Too long, in fact.

It's sad that he has to consider options like pepper spray for him to defend himself if needed for the next few years. Waiting seven years plus is too long. Youngsters who have development problems serious enough to warrant not arming will have the associated disqualifications like legal problems that are barriers in our current system to obtain LTC or the proposed practice of CC.

 

[Younggun]

Your logic is fail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Well, I didn't mean like developmental disorders, in terms of that. I meant like problems with not making good decisions sufficient to compare with need to consider that they should not be armed.

My 17.5 year old is now half way through his associates degree. He drives safely. He's making mature decisions and in a few more months, he is in full control of his life and I won't have a say at all unless he gives me one. To say that seven years must pass from age 18 before he can carry for self defense is just insane.

 

[txinvestigator]

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.

So then you understand that most of the bill just adds unlicensed carry to the existing laws, and makes unlicensed carry legal?


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. [/quote] What?

I consider getting CHL/LTC, not a problem - but carry is a big responsibility/liability to lawful persons.

Again, what? A liability?

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.

I don't know who you listened to in LE, but cops are not against armed citizens. They strongly support it And you are right about one thing, cops only want to have to fight the bad guys. But what has that to do with carry?

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.

Cool story......

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.

In Texas, cops have been handling situations with handgun-armed non-bad guys for two decades.

 

[Younggun]

Well, I didn't mean like developmental disorders, in terms of that. I meant like problems with not making good decisions sufficient to compare with need to consider that they should not be armed.

My 17.5 year old is now half way through his associates degree. He drives safely. He's making mature decisions and in a few more months, he is in full control of his life and I won't have a say at all unless he gives me one. To say that seven years must pass from age 18 before he can carry for self defense is just insane.

I'm sorry. I misread your post while multi tasking.


I don't necessarily agree with 21, but I agree that 25 is insane.


Again, my mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk