DK Firearms

TX: 87R 2021 Session SB 546 Expand places LTC holder can carry

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Sand Hills

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    106
    26
    Seguin
    SB 546 Relating to the places where a person may carry a handgun if the person is licensed to carry a handgun and to certain related criminal offenses.
    by Springer.
    87(R) SB 546 - Introduced version (texas.gov)

    I have read through this bill a couple times. It gets a bit tangled reading back and forth between current law, proposed law, references to other parts of the code. Here's my summary of what it does, which may be incorrect in some particulars, so no promises.

    It should be kept in mind that Springer also introduced an unlicensed/constitutional carry bill (SB 540) as well (which at first glance seems superior to and better written than the House bill by Biedermann). (I got that just exactly backwards. I think the Biedermann bill is better). This bill to expand LTC carry seems to be specifically paired with the Springer con carry bill. (And upon futher reading, it seems Springer has two senate bills dealing with unlicensed carry? SB 540 and SB 545?)

    In short, SB 546 would largely eliminate the current location restrictions on carry by LTC holders. Campus carry rules would remain, court rooms still off-limits (I think), school sponsored activities still no-go (but limited to the "portion of the premises" that the activities occur on, not entire building or property), polling places still off limits (but again, only the portion where voting is going on, not an entire building just because there happens to be a polling place in it. However most of the rest of the restrictions would be gone. I'm putting a question mark by those that I'm still unsure of, but it appears there would be no more ban for 51% establishments, at amateur and professional sporting events, at correctional facilities (?), at amusement parks, at civil commitment facilities (?), at hospitals in general, at the statutorily listed State Hospitals, at governmental meetings governed by the Open Meetings Act. It would also appear to ban employers from forbidding licensed carry at work and in company vehicles (?).

    State agencies and political subdivisions would not be able to ban licensed carry at all. Right now that is generally true but there are some exceptions (like government meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act). SB 546 would pretty much make those exceptions go away.

    Booboo follows. Disregard. >>> The bill would also fix the glitch in the code governing private security officers about carrying in plain clothes. Under current law, as I understand it, certain private security officers with the correct authorizations can open carry a handgun while in a uniform, but they can't carry concealed when in plain clothes unless they also have an LTC. SB 546 would eliminate the requirement for the LTC so a private protection officer who is otherwise authorized to be armed could carry concealed in plain clothes.

    If the Springer SB 540 con carry bill and this bill both passed, you could, without needing a license, carry a handgun pretty much anywhere an LTC holder can carry under current law, and an LTC holder could carry nearly anywhere.
     
    Last edited:

    txinvestigator

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    14,204
    96
    Ft Worth, TX
    SB 546 Relating to the places where a person may carry a handgun if the person is licensed to carry a handgun and to certain related criminal offenses.
    by Springer.
    87(R) SB 546 - Introduced version (texas.gov)

    I have read through this bill a couple times. It gets a bit tangled reading back and forth between current law, proposed law, references to other parts of the code. Here's my summary of what it does, which may be incorrect in some particulars, so no promises.

    It should be kept in mind that Springer also introduced an unlicensed/constitutional carry bill (SB 540) as well (which at first glance seems superior to and better written than the House bill by Biedermann). (I got that just exactly backwards. I think the Biedermann bill is better). This bill to expand LTC carry seems to be specifically paired with the Springer con carry bill. (And upon futher reading, it seems Springer has two senate bills dealing with unlicensed carry? SB 540 and SB 545?)

    In short, SB 546 would largely eliminate the current location restrictions on carry by LTC holders. Campus carry rules would remain, court rooms still off-limits (I think), school sponsored activities still no-go (but limited to the "portion of the premises" that the activities occur on, not entire building or property), polling places still off limits (but again, only the portion where voting is going on, not an entire building just because there happens to be a polling place in it. However most of the rest of the restrictions would be gone. I'm putting a question mark by those that I'm still unsure of, but it appears there would be no more ban for 51% establishments, at amateur and professional sporting events, at correctional facilities (?), at amusement parks, at civil commitment facilities (?), at hospitals in general, at the statutorily listed State Hospitals, at governmental meetings governed by the Open Meetings Act. It would also appear to ban employers from forbidding licensed carry at work and in company vehicles (?).

    State agencies and political subdivisions would not be able to ban licensed carry at all. Right now that is generally true but there are some exceptions (like government meetings subject to the Open Meetings Act). SB 546 would pretty much make those exceptions go away.

    The bill would also fix the glitch in the code governing private security officers about carrying in plain clothes. Under current law, as I understand it, certain private security officers with the correct authorizations can open carry a handgun while in a uniform, but they can't carry concealed when in plain clothes unless they also have an LTC. SB 546 would eliminate the requirement for the LTC so a private protection officer who is otherwise authorized to be armed could carry concealed in plain clothes.

    If the Springer SB 540 con carry bill and this bill both passed, you could, without needing a license, carry a handgun pretty much anywhere an LTC holder can carry under current law, and an LTC holder could carry nearly anywhere.


    I'll see if I can help. First, in regards to Security Guards, currently they can only conceal a handgun while on duty if they have both a security officer commission AND a Level 4 PPO certification. An LTC does not allow a security guard to carry concealed while on duty at all.

    The bill would make penal codes section 46.02 and 46.03 non-applicable to LTC holders. 46.03 prohibits carry at schools, polling places, courts, racetracks, secured areas of airports and executions.

    It removes the requirement to have an LTC to carry under 46.02, basically making most places unnecessary to be licensed to carry. (I think this is the section you believed applied to security guards, but it doesn't)

    Oddly, the bill leaves 46.035 intact. That is the section that lists off-limits places for LTC holders. Bars, high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic events, correctional facilities, etc. It reduces penalties. However, under this bill a license would no longer be required to carry. That confuses me...
     

    Sand Hills

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    106
    26
    Seguin
    Oddly, the bill leaves 46.035 intact. That is the section that lists off-limits places for LTC holders. Bars, high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic events, correctional facilities, etc. It reduces penalties. However, under this bill a license would no longer be required to carry. That confuses me...

    I believe you may be conflating different bills?

    THIS BILL, SB 546 deals only with where LTC holders carry, not with unlicensed carry. Springer has others that remove the requirement to have a license to carry.

    While 46.035 is partially left in the code, in Section 13 the bill repeals the following sub-paragraphs [text in italics is my summary of that paragraph]:

    Sections 46.035(b), [51% bars, amateur and professional sporting events, correctional facilities, hospitals and nursing homes, amusement parks, and civil commitment facilities]

    (c), [government open meetings]

    (f)(1), [definition of "amusement park" for purposes of 46.035]

    (i), [requires hospitals/nursing homes, amusement parks, and government open meetings to post signs if they want to forbid licensed carry]

    (k), [lack of effective notice is a defense to prosecution for carry in a 51% location]

    (l), [lack of effective notice is a defense to prosecution for carry at collegiate sporting event]

    (m) [emergency services worker engaged in providing emergency services is a defense to prosecution under 46.035(b) and (c)]

    Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, as added by Chapters 1214 (H.B. 1889) and 1222 (H.B. 2300), Acts of the 80th Legislature, Regular Session, 2007 [being a court officer is defense to prosecution for certain violations of 46.035]


    So 46.035 is not left fully intact. The only offenses left are
    - displaying a handgun in plain view of another in a public place (unless in a belt or shoulder holster),
    - intentionally displaying a handgun in plain view of another at a public or private college or university (no exception for open carry)
    - concealed carrying a handgun in areas of a public or private college or university where the institution has adopted no-carry rules in accordance with the Campus Carry Act, as long as the institution has given effective notice under 30.06
    - carrying while intoxicated
    - a LTC holder who is also licensed as a security officer violates a provision of GC Chapter 411, subchapter H (which are all the qualifications to have a LTC - not chemically dependent etc)
     

    Sand Hills

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    106
    26
    Seguin
    The bill would make penal codes section 46.02 and 46.03 non-applicable to LTC holders. 46.03 prohibits carry at schools, polling places, courts, racetracks, secured areas of airports and executions.

    I listed these in original post, w/o paragraph numbers, but I erred in saying courts and polling places would still be off limits. They would still be off limits to unlicensed carry, but the scope of the polling premises would be curtailed under this bill.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    To All,

    I have to ask: Is it TOO much to ask to SIMPLIFY the TX laws on carrying firearms/weapons to simply amend the public laws to allow LTC holders to carry concealed in ALL PLACES where a sworn police officer may lawfully carry a handgun??

    Fwiw, the public records of TX, since open/concealed carry became lawful with a handgun license, indicate that our "DPS licensed to wear handgun individuals" have a BETTER safety record than the mass of sworn police officers do.
    Further, a person who can by trusted to carry a handgun ANYWHERE should be trusted to carry that handgun EVERYWHERE.

    ImVho, the SAFEST place for my handgun, when I'm NOT in my home, is IN THE HOLSTER ON MY BELT, rather than in a locked vehicle.
    (Some friends of mine on this forum KNOW that I "lost my 1911 pistol", which was "securely locked away" in the heavy-duty/diamond-plate toolbox on my PU, when the truck was stolen from a "secure" hospital parking lot here in SATX in April of 2015.)

    NOTE: A deputy with BCSD, who knew about my F250, as he had borrowed it to move a boat once, said, "I wonder if the thief ever got into that tool box. - 'Coke box' locks are near impossible to open W/O the key."

    just my OPINIONS, satx
     
    Last edited:

    Sand Hills

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    106
    26
    Seguin
    I'll see if I can help. First, in regards to Security Guards, currently they can only conceal a handgun while on duty if they have both a security officer commission AND a Level 4 PPO certification. An LTC does not allow a security guard to carry concealed while on duty at all.

    ...

    It removes the requirement to have an LTC to carry under 46.02, basically making most places unnecessary to be licensed to carry. (I think this is the section you believed applied to security guards, but it doesn't)

    ...

    This is the part of the bill I was referring to:

    ========================================================

    (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

    ...

    (5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person ’s security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:

    (A) is engaged in the performance of the person ’s duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person ’s place of assignment; and

    (B) is either:

    (i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer ’s weapon in plain view; or

    (ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer ’s weapon in a concealed manner;

    (6) is carrying:
    (A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and [
    (B) a handgun: [

    (i) in a concealed manner; or

    (ii) in a shoulder or belt holster
    ;

    ===================================

    The bill strikes out that paragraph (6)

    I did misread it as (6) being a requirement for "not wearing the uniform", didn't realize it's a separate part.
     

    txinvestigator

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    14,204
    96
    Ft Worth, TX
    This is the part of the bill I was referring to:

    ========================================================

    (b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

    ...

    (5) acts as a personal protection officer and carries the person ’s security officer commission and personal protection officer authorization, if the person:

    (A) is engaged in the performance of the person ’s duties as a personal protection officer under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, or is traveling to or from the person ’s place of assignment; and

    (B) is either:

    (i) wearing the uniform of a security officer, including any uniform or apparel described by Section 1702.323(d), Occupations Code, and carrying the officer ’s weapon in plain view; or

    (ii) not wearing the uniform of a security officer and carrying the officer ’s weapon in a concealed manner;

    (6) is carrying:
    (A) a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a handgun; and [
    (B) a handgun: [

    (i) in a concealed manner; or

    (ii) in a shoulder or belt holster
    ;

    ===================================

    The bill strikes out that paragraph (6)

    I did misread it as (6) being a requirement for "not wearing the uniform", didn't realize it's a separate part.

    (6) Does not refer to the security guards... But in the text of the bill it is confusing as printed.
     

    txinvestigator

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    14,204
    96
    Ft Worth, TX
    I believe you may be conflating different bills?
    No, I looked at, read and referred to only one bill, the one linked in the OP.

    THIS BILL, SB 546 deals only with where LTC holders carry, not with unlicensed carry. Springer has others that remove the requirement to have a license to carry.
    What I did was misread the changes to 46.15. Currently 46.15 (B) makes 46.02 non applicable to LTC holders. This bill strikes the LTC holder portion from 46.15(b), and moves it to 46.15 (a), which would mean that both 46.02 and 46.03 would not apply to LTC Holders.

    Thanks for the clarification
     

    Sand Hills

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 23, 2011
    106
    26
    Seguin
    No, I looked at, read and referred to only one bill, the one linked in the OP.

    What I did was misread the changes to 46.15. Currently 46.15 (B) makes 46.02 non applicable to LTC holders. This bill strikes the LTC holder portion from 46.15(b), and moves it to 46.15 (a), which would mean that both 46.02 and 46.03 would not apply to LTC Holders.

    Thanks for the clarification

    Ah. when you wrote " It removes the requirement to have an LTC to carry under 46.02, " I though you meant it removed the requirement to have an LTC to carry, period.
     

    popper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 23, 2013
    2,999
    96
    Even more confusion, LE can disarm you LTC if they want to. Plus adds limits to campus carry.
    Only gun bill I see that has gone to homeland security committee . House still hast done diddly squat in anything but spending. IMHO House has done nothing but constrain LTC or carry this session.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    Even more confusion, LE can disarm you LTC if they want to. Plus adds limits to campus carry.
    Only gun bill I see that has gone to homeland security committee . House still hast done diddly squat in anything but spending. IMHO House has done nothing but constrain LTC or carry this session.

    LE disarm is nothing new, they’ve always the power to do so for officer safety. This just codifies the case law.

    As for House gun legislation, what did you expect? We see significant movement about once a decade (or longer) and the open carry is still relatively fresh.

    The biggest agenda item for the lege as a whole is pass a budget and winter storm fallout.
     

    popper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 23, 2013
    2,999
    96
    The biggest agenda item for the leg. as a whole is pass a budget and winter storm fallout.
    Amounts to more spending on beautification of parks? Figure out how to cover up for windmill renewable total failure? They already played the blame card, still doing nothing.

    So compare Senate calendar with House calendar. Senate appears to actually be doing something but that work will be cancelled by the do-nothing House. Past Leg. can't actually write laws that cover more than an 'idea', don't dot the Is or cross the Ts. Probably on purpose so courts get a lot of nuisance cases.

    If my school class from the 50s sat in on the House floor and several of the committee meetings, IMHO, the response would be 'why are these people here and why the hell do we pay them?, they don't do anything good".
    So LE can disarm you and if you try to sue, LE protected? Is there a difference between 'case' law and 'real' law?
    Most bill write-up effects several sections of existing law so lots of strike-out and underline changes to codified law. Looks complicated and sometimes is, as lawyers tend to talk like doctors 'handwriting'. They can't just write what they want and have someone else make sure it gets the codified stuff get done correctly.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,108
    Messages
    2,952,936
    Members
    34,935
    Latest member
    LandenR
    Top Bottom