Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says Senate currently lacks the votes to pass permitless carry

[TexasRedneck]

Keep the heat on, guys - that's all I can say at this point. This is NOT a done deal.

 

[Texasgrillchef]

Thanks. That article only lists 5 amendments one of which I don’t care for.

And the last sentence of the article is a bit concerning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That’s only true sometimes. But it only goes to conference if the house won’t concur. The house will concurr

 

[Rhino]

Yeah, sort of. The bill goes back to the House for the final OK, which is no big deal. Once the House gives it's final approval, it goes to the Governor to sign.

The $$$ question... how many innocent people will some liberal somewhere cause to die between now and the governors signature in order to try and pressure politicians to NOT sign the bill. I'd stay on high alert if I was anywhere near a gun-free zone.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I (and many others) have fought HARD to get this bill done - but I fully intend to retain my LTC for many of the reasons stated above, as well as the fact that it's a legal identity document here in the State of Texas. On those rare occasions where I've found myself having to make a purchase in a "posted" business, I hand them my LTC as an ID. Some interesting reactions over the years...lol

 

[Glenn B]

Hopefully in will not die in the House-Senate conference committee and hopefully, of the 5 of 8 amendments reported on, this one will be removed:

Removing a clause allowing people, who in good faith carried a handgun into a prohibited place, to correct their mistake and leave the premises immediately without being subject to arrest;

Good faith mistakes like that should not be considered criminal nor prosecutable.

As for the House-Senate conference committee, my guess is it got all yea votes from Republican senators because now they can let it die in committee and later claim - 'Heck, I voted in favor of it so don't fault me for it not becoming law'. Typical political BS. With my limited understanding of how things work in Texas, I believe if it fails now, it would be another two years before it could be considered again. Is that correct?

 

[Glenn B]

I have to wonder, if this becomes law and if a person is legally eligible under it to carry - how could that same person ever be turned down for a LTC if he (traditional use of the masculine pronoun 'he') wanted one!

 

[Shady]

Ok I am going to be the its a great law BUT


Even after its signed by the Gov. Its not going to change anything you will still see someone with a gat strapped on them less often than a Unicorn pooping skittles.


BTW thanks to everyone and the hard work you all put out to get this done.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

Rep Schaffer has already agreed to all of the amendments that were offered and approved today. Sen Schwertner had the prep approved prior to submitting them. So the house will approve without a conference. It should go to the House and be voted on Monday or Tuesday. Then it takes about 3-5 days to enroll and transfer to th Govs desk. The gov will get 10 days to sign.

That’s only true sometimes. But it only goes to conference if the house won’t concur. The house will concurr

You seem confident and maybe you have an inside track but Schaefer seems to be concerned with some of the language in the amendments as does GOA according to the email I got last night.

Maybe that’s all lip service to keep the troops rallied?

I still don’t like the removal of the “oops clause”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Wiliamr]

You seem confident and maybe you have an inside track but Schaefer seems to be concerned with some of the language in the amendments as does GOA according to the email I got last night.

Maybe that’s all lip service to keep the troops rallied?

I still don’t like the removal of the “oops clause”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think the two amendments that will cause problems in the House are: the creation of new signage and the instant criminalization of someone just walking into a premise that does not allow firearms and turning around once error is discovered. The House debated both issues long and hard and I believe the signage was offered as an amendment but either failed in vote or was withdrawn ( I forget). Those two amendments will cause issues with the bill because it can be argued they change the intent and scope of the House passed version ( a major procedural issue) and possibly sink it if it has to go to conference committee as the House may not agree to changes and just allow the bill to die in limbo.

 

[Haystack]

I think the two amendments that will cause problems in the House are: the creation of new signage and the instant criminalization of someone just walking into a premise that does not allow firearms and turning around once error is discovered. The House debated both issues long and hard and I believe the signage was offered as an amendment but either failed in vote or was withdrawn ( I forget). Those two amendments will cause issues with the bill because it can be argued they change the intent and scope of the House passed version ( a major procedural issue) and possibly sink it if it has to go to conference committee as the House may not agree to changes and just allow the bill to die in limbo.

As to the signage issue, I think new signs are necessary if 30.06 and 30.07 are going to remain in effect. LTC holders are currently prohibited by these signs from carrying past them, but non-LTC's are not affected. So, if we are going to keep 30.06 and 30.07 there needs to be signs for non-LTC's. Or (my preference) just get rid of 30.06/30.07. Either way, something has to change on the sign issue.

The issue of instant criminalization for a good faith error of walking into a prohibited area is going to be a problem. The bill may pass with this language just for the sake of not arguing about it. If so, it will probably be changed in a future session.

 

[TexasRedneck]

The bill may pass with this language just for the sake of not arguing about it. If so, it will probably be changed in a future session.

And this is the key....there might be segments/sections that are less than ideal in our eyes, but let's get the core bill into law, and refine as needed. Pick the hill you wanna die on....we do NOT need the 'tude of previous sessions by some groups of "ALL OR NONE!!" - we got exactly that...NONE.

 

[oldag]

GOA is concerned about it making it through the process.

 

[Southpaw]

I believe the pressure we have exerterted since Patrick first mentioned he didn't have the votes to where we are now has been a deciding factor in this bills progress, so keep it up. We need this passed this session and further refinement can be applied in future legislation.

 

[toddnjoyce]

As to the signage issue, I think new signs are necessary if 30.06 and 30.07 are going to remain in effect. LTC holders are currently prohibited by these signs from carrying past them, but non-LTC's are not affected. So, if we are going to keep 30.06 and 30.07 there needs to be signs for non-LTC's. Or (my preference) just get rid of 30.06/30.07. Either way, something has to change on the sign issue.

The issue of instant criminalization for a good faith error of walking into a prohibited area is going to be a problem. The bill may pass with this language just for the sake of not arguing about it. If so, it will probably be changed in a future session.

Signage. 30.06/07 wording can be more easily changed than creating new signage requirement, so I think a compromise can he reached. Those signs and the 51% sign need to go away, but they won’t anytime soon.

Instant criminals. The good faith exception did not always exist for 30.06/30.07 or 51%. I’ve personally walked into posted places of all three varieties, then later found out I was violating and left when appropriate and have never had an LE interaction. Reality is LE issues the citation and it gets real ugly when a private business owner or their agent detains someone trying to leave the premises while waiting for LE to show up for a trespass violation.

 

[benenglish]

Reality is LE issues the citation and it gets real ugly when a private business owner or their agent detains someone trying to leave the premises while waiting for LE to show up for a trespass violation.

I've never heard of that happening. Yeah, I imagine it would get ugly.

That said, I could imagine that the elimination of the good faith exception might be enough of a poison pill to kill this thing. I imagine that was the intent all along.

 

[Army 1911]

The issue of signage is simple. Add "The 30.06 and 30.07 signs apply to both unlicensed and licensed carriers. "

 

[kenboyles72]

I've never heard of that happening. Yeah, I imagine it would get ugly.

That said, I could imagine that the elimination of the good faith exception might be enough of a poison pill to kill this thing. I imagine that was the intent all along.

While the good faith may have been removed, it is no different than the current laws under the LTC. This was just to give a little more grace to an individual that accidentally entered a posted place. While I would have liked for this to be added, it's not a total deal breaker.

edit:
Also, all the adopted ammendments from the Senate are already approved by the House. This bill will move fast out of the House.

 

[cycleguy2300]

I've never heard of that happening. Yeah, I imagine it would get ugly.

That said, I could imagine that the elimination of the good faith exception might be enough of a poison pill to kill this thing. I imagine that was the intent all along.

Had to explain to several security guards they can use force to kicknsomeone out, but they absolutely cannot prevent someone from leaving who is trespassing.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[etmo]

GOA is concerned about it making it through the process.

I heard it passed the Senate last night, so hopefully not too many hurdles will arise WRT amendments from the House, and we can get a signature from whats-his-name

 

[rotor]

From GOA and a list of the amendments...

Constitutional Carry and the Senate: Don’t Celebrate Yet | GOA Texas

You may have heard the news: HB 1927, the Constitutional Carry bill, passed both 2nd Reading and 3rd Reading in the Texas Senate! Although this is exciting to hear, we cannot celebrate yet. The bill author, Rep. Matt Schaefer, stated Thursday evening : We are now reviewing amendments that...

texas.gunowners.org