Texas law enforcement ‘skeptical and nervous’ about constitutional carry gun bill

[Wendell]

House Bill 1927, which has received mixed-reviews from firearm instructors as well as law enforcement, passed out of the Senate on May 5 and is headed back to the House as amended. There, lawmakers can either accept the changes and send it to Gov. Greg Abbott, where it is expected to get his signature, or come up with a version agreeable to both chambers in a conference committee.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article251298328.html

[TAZ]

I’m sure the Art Acevedos of TX law enforcement are nervous. Like they were about CHL and Open Carry. Criminals that mean to harm LEO or others for that matter are already carrying whatever they want, wherever they want. They don’t give a crap about laws. How has it been for the various other states that have constitutional carry laws?

About the only thing I can think of is folks too lazy to read the laws relating to prohibited places getting into trouble. But that’s not a threat to society.

[RoyGBiv]

I’m sure the Art Acevedos of TX law enforcement are nervous. Like they were about CHL and Open Carry. Criminals that mean to harm LEO or others for that matter are already carrying whatever they want, wherever they want. They don’t give a crap about laws. How has it been for the various other states that have constitutional carry laws?

About the only thing I can think of is folks too lazy to read the laws relating to prohibited places getting into trouble. But that’s not a threat to society.

QFT.

Acevedo is an embarrassment to his position.

[Caballoflaco]

Some of the biggest opponents in my state to constitutional carry are the Sheriff’s. But, it’s not because they fear errybody gonna be strapped now. It’s because they all make a lot of money issuing ccw licenses. In some of the poorer counties a larger percentage of their annual budget than you might think comes from pistol permits some counties would be hit pretty hard if they lost that revenue.

[HCM]

Some of the biggest opponents in my state to constitutional carry are the Sheriff’s. But, it’s not because they fear errybody gonna be strapped now. It’s because they all make a lot of money issuing ccw licenses. In some of the poorer counties a larger percentage of their annual budget than you might think comes from pistol permits some counties would be hit pretty hard if they lost that revenue.

I think I know which state you are in but that’s not a factor in TX - here LTCs are entirely handled by the state.

[HCM]

I’m sure the Art Acevedos of TX law enforcement are nervous. Like they were about CHL and Open Carry. Criminals that mean to harm LEO or others for that matter are already carrying whatever they want, wherever they want. They don’t give a crap about laws. How has it been for the various other states that have constitutional carry laws?

About the only thing I can think of is folks too lazy to read the laws relating to prohibited places getting into trouble. But that’s not a threat to society.

Thankfully, Art Acevedo (who is from CA) is leaving TX to become Chief in Miami, FL.

[fatdog]

THE biggest opponents in my state to constitutional carry are the Sheriff’s..

fixed that for you, but for the AL Sheriff's Association we would have had constitutional carry as part of the 2013 reforms, this is the first year it got out of committee in the house and the current speaker is going to kill it at behest of the Sheriff's association....it is only about the money in this state...

I wish they would pass a lottery bill and give the Sheriff's 1% or something to buy them off on this.

Pulling for the citizens of Texas to win back their rights on this!

[Zincwarrior]

I’m sure the Art Acevedos of TX law enforcement are nervous. Like they were about CHL and Open Carry. Criminals that mean to harm LEO or others for that matter are already carrying whatever they want, wherever they want. They don’t give a crap about laws. How has it been for the various other states that have constitutional carry laws?

About the only thing I can think of is folks too lazy to read the laws relating to prohibited places getting into trouble. But that’s not a threat to society.
There is a difference however. Without a licensing requirement, there is no requirement to understand what the appropriate self defense laws actually are.

[shane45]

Meaning the mandatory CCW class in Tx is now bypassed by Constitutional Carry?

[Zincwarrior]

Meaning the mandatory CCW class in Tx is now bypassed by Constitutional Carry?

Yes (although currently is an LTC either open or concealed). I believe the current version of the proposed law still requires a LTC for certain areas.

[OlongJohnson]

There is a difference however. Without a licensing requirement, there is no requirement to understand what the appropriate self defense laws actually are.

There is always a requirement to know the law. They just don't make you sit through a class on it.

[Zincwarrior]

There is always a requirement to know the law. They just don't make you sit through a class on it.

IN a general sense thats true. But one method requires you to actually read and understand the law at least to a minimum level. The other does not.

[Caballoflaco]

fixed that for you, but for the AL Sheriff's Association we would have had constitutional carry as part of the 2013 reforms, this is the first year it got out of committee in the house and the current speaker is going to kill it at behest of the Sheriff's association....it is only about the money in this state...

I wish they would pass a lottery bill and give the Sheriff's 1% or something to buy them off on this.

Pulling for the citizens of Texas to win back their rights on this!

It’s not like we have a problem with elected Sheriffs down here and the following are not links to a lot of Sheriffs from around the state who have ended up being charged with various crimes in the last 10 years. I’m pretty sure there isn’t a duplicate name in any of those links.

https://www.al.com/news/2021/03/ex-alabama-sheriff-indicted-on-charges-that-he-wrote-85000-in-checks-to-self-family-from-sheriff-funds.html

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/11/ex-alabama-sheriff-gets-18-months-in-federal-prison.html

https://www.al.com/news/2018/08/greg_steenson_ana_franklin.html

https://www.al.com/news/montgomery/2020/09/ex-alabama-sheriff-arrested-on-ethics-violation-charges.html


https://www.al.com/live/2013/07/feds_indict_washington_county.html

https://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/2019/06/alabama-sheriff-charged-with-defrauding-church-in-jail-food-fund-scheme.html

https://www.al.com/news/2019/08/limestone-countys-10-term-sheriff-arrested-after-ethics-investigation.html

https://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/2016/08/former_alabama_sheriff_arreste.html

https://www.al.com/news/2018/04/ana_franklin_blogger_warden.html

[Jim Watson]

Also, Alabama went for a while with a carry permit deemed sufficient to buy a gun without NICS call.
Until it turned out that one sheriff was not doing much background check, so now it is back to call the feds.

[TAZ]

There is a difference however. Without a licensing requirement, there is no requirement to understand what the appropriate self defense laws actually are.

I believe this racks up there with not a danger to society, cops and all that blood in the streets stuff, but more of a how deep a legal hole one digs for himself by not taking the time to understand the laws of the land.

My last renewal was online. I checked the box that I read and understood the law updates. Not a lot of dedication to teaching the legal updates. I’ll see what the renewal looks like next time round. I still have 2 years to go.

Seriously, there are many states that have constitutional carry. How has their crime changed as a result of constitutional carry? I’m guessing not much or we would be hearing about all carnage 24/7/365

[TAZ]

Thankfully, Art Acevedo (who is from CA) is leaving TX to become Chief in Miami, FL.

That turd just would not flush out if this state fast enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

That turd just would not flush out if this state fast enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. The Socialist Harris County Sheriff is leaving too, unfortunately to become the head of ICE, which he wanted abolished.

[Erik]

IN a general sense thats true. But one method requires you to actually read and understand the law at least to a minimum level. The other does not.

[cough]personal responsibility[cough]

[Caballoflaco]

Seriously, there are many states that have constitutional carry. How has their crime changed as a result of constitutional carry? I’m guessing not much or we would be hearing about all carnage 24/7/365

I think the biggest beneficiaries of constitutional carry aren’t “gun people” and the 2A crowd. It’s the poor folks who actually live in shitty neighborhoods and can’t affiord the time or money for a class. Those same people are also far more likely than the average member of PF to be a victim of violent crime.

[whomever]

"But one method requires you to actually read and understand the law at least to a minimum level. The other does not."

Requiring instruction on the legalities of force, basic safety, and maybe marksmanship seem like no-brainer common sense requirements. But in counterpoint, here in WA we have had shall issue CCW since the early 1960's, and have no training requirement at all. You pay the fee, get fingerprinted, and you get the permit. And in the decades I have lived here, I almost never hear of incidents where that training might have kept a CCW'er from doing something stupid (for example, someone who shot a fleeing purse snatcher in the back and then said 'but I thought it was OK'). Mostly, you just don't hear about people with permits doing bad things at all.

The closest I recall was a college kid who got his permit on his 21st birthday, and later that night did a drunken drive-by on a rival frat house. I suppose you can argue that he wouldn't have done that, if only he'd had to take a class that stressed that drive-by's weren't, strictly speaking, OK.

As an aside, I do think there is an advantage to having permits, vs constitutional carry. I have heard a number of people over the years say things like 'I'm going to be careful (about some legal thing) because I don't want to lose my permit'. And that's a little silly - in WA, the only way to lose your permit is to do something that will make you a federally prohibited person, which makes losing the permit kind of moot. But I think that 'I'm going to be careful' attitude is a benefit of having a permit system.

The downside, of course, is if someone who never thought they might need a permit needs one right now. Some jurisdictions in WA deliberately drag out the process for a few months. Constitutional carry at least fixes that problem.

[Trooper224]

I believe this racks up there with not a danger to society, cops and all that blood in the streets stuff, but more of a how deep a legal hole one digs for himself by not taking the time to understand the laws of the land.

My last renewal was online. I checked the box that I read and understood the law updates. Not a lot of dedication to teaching the legal updates. I’ll see what the renewal looks like next time round. I still have 2 years to go.

Seriously, there are many states that have constitutional carry. How has their crime changed as a result of constitutional carry? I’m guessing not much or we would be hearing about all carnage 24/7/365

My state has had Constitutional Carry for five or six years. Blood isn't running in the streets and crime is no worse than before. It's really a "nothing to see here" issue.

[Rex G]

For several years, now, Texas has allowed unlicensed carry inside motor vehicles, by the owners and operators of said vehicles. (Carry inside vehicles while “traveling” had long been legal; the recent change did away with the “traveling” requirement.) That legislative change did not cause an increase of blood runnin’ in the streets.

Realistically, most folks, in Texas, who can legally carry handguns, whether licensed private citizens, off-the-clock peace officers, or qualified security/protection personnel, etc., leave their guns inside their vehicles, anyway. Allowing legal permit-less handgun carry, outside the vehicles, will probably not change this, much.

The Texas Penal Code has, historically, been VERY long-gun-friendly. Even so, violence with long guns has generally been anomalous. Yes, violence with long guns has occurred, but, like I just said, it has been anomalous, compared to violence committed with handguns.

Texas does have a huge problem with gang members and other prohibited persons carrying firearms, but this permit-less carry bill, HB 1927, does not allow gang members and other prohibited persons, to all-of-a-sudden start legally carrying.

So, I foresee the fuss as being much ado about nothing.

I do foresee a significant unintended consequence, that being a proliferation of correctly-/legally-worded signage, forbidding the carry of firearms and/or weapons on the premises. There may or may not be a rush, by businesses and other private entities, to install screening devices that detect weapons.

[Suvorov]

Is there any reputable evidence to suggest that states that have adopted “constitutional carry” have seen an increase in violent crime? “Blood in the streets” is always the cry but to my knowledge - has yet to materialize.

[OlongJohnson]

I intend to maintain my LTC even if this passes. Because:

1. Transfers without a call to the feebs.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

[Zincwarrior]

My state has had Constitutional Carry for five or six years. Blood isn't running in the streets and crime is no worse than before. It's really a "nothing to see here" issue.

Oh yea, I am not objecting to the legal change. I assume any idiot will be armed regardless of law.

[Rex G]

I intend to maintain my LTC even if this passes. Because:

1. Transfers without a call to the feebs.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

This. Notably, that GFSZ thing does have that language about being “licensed.”

[KellyinAvon]

So, it's about the money?

[Borderland]

There is a difference however. Without a licensing requirement, there is no requirement to understand what the appropriate self defense laws actually are.


It's everyone's responsibility to know what the law is in their state. The state here doesn't mandate that I know what the law is regarding concealed carry. No test of any kind to get a permit. Just fill out the form, get fingerprinted, pass a BC, pay the fee and you get a permit. Not a lot of permit holders getting jammed up here because they don't know the law.

Of course the criminal element won't care what the law is, they never do.

[HCM]

For several years, now, Texas has allowed unlicensed carry inside motor vehicles, by the owners and operators of said vehicles. (Carry inside vehicles while “traveling” had long been legal; the recent change did away with the “traveling” requirement.) That legislative change did not cause an increase of blood runnin’ in the streets.

Realistically, most folks, in Texas, who can legally carry handguns, whether licensed private citizens, off-the-clock peace officers, or qualified security/protection personnel, etc., leave their guns inside their vehicles, anyway. Allowing legal permit-less handgun carry, outside the vehicles, will probably not change this, much.

The Texas Penal Code has, historically, been VERY long-gun-friendly. Even so, violence with long guns has generally been anomalous. Yes, violence with long guns has occurred, but, like I just said, it has been anomalous, compared to violence committed with handguns.

Texas does have a huge problem with gang members and other prohibited persons carrying firearms, but this permit-less carry bill, HB 1927, does not allow gang members and other prohibited persons, to all-of-a-sudden start legally carrying.

So, I foresee the fuss as being much ado about nothing.

I do foresee a significant unintended consequence, that being a proliferation of correctly-/legally-worded signage, forbidding the carry of firearms and/or weapons on the premises. There may or may not be a rush, by businesses and other private entities, to install screening devices that detect weapons.

I'm all for people actually carrying guns, including via constitutional carry.

If you want to have an impact on crime increase penalties on the "car gun" idiots who leave unsecured guns in cars 24/7.

[HCM]

So, it's about the money?

No. Not in TX.

Unfortunately the thread has mixed comments about constitutional carry issues in Alabama, where county Sheriff's make money issuing carry permits with the issues of TX.

There have been a few LTC instructors whining about this but in TX the state issues Licenses To Carry and it's a break even operation at best.

Texas would have had constitutional carry several years ago but for the absolute idiots of Open Carry Texas and Open Tarrant County who thought threatening lawmakers in their offices and and at their homes was a smart move.

Instead, the lawmakers went from requiring licensing for concealed carry via the TX CHL to requiring licensing for both open and concealed carry as a little "fuck you" to the Open Carry idiots.

[RancidSumo]

There is a difference however. Without a licensing requirement, there is no requirement to understand what the appropriate self defense laws actually are.

Can't imagine anything less important than the stuff they teach in the CHL classes. They are also not taught by lawyers and I recommend not listening to anything they say about the law.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'll disagree. When I took the classes, we had a segment of blood lusted fools, dragging the body inside the house. Think they could shoot anytime in TX over property etc. Now, who knows if they would change their behavior.

It will be an empirical question of whether the low crime rate of folks with LTCs, continues with constitutional carry. We haven't seen more craziness in con. carry states as far as I know.

[Zincwarrior]

I wonder if we will see a spate of new signs like when OC passed.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

When OC happened, there were antigun folks and companies contacting businesses warning them of danger, some giving free signs away and some selling them. I can see some companies putting up total ban signs. It will hit folks if the big stores like HEB, WalMart, Target, etc. go for it. OC signs weren't a big deal as only certain people went that route. A local restaurant that put up an OC sign said they had a couple of old coots ranting at first but no discernible impact.

One still would need an LTC for reciprocity.

[RancidSumo]

When OC happened, there were antigun folks and companies contacting businesses warning them of danger, some giving free signs away and some selling them. I can see some companies putting up total ban signs. It will hit folks if the big stores like HEB, WalMart, Target, etc. go for it. OC signs weren't a big deal as only certain people went that route. A local restaurant that put up an OC sign said they had a couple of old coots ranting at first but no discernible impact.

One still would need an LTC for reciprocity.

The difference is you can see/stop someone from open carrying in your business.

[KellyinAvon]

No. Not in TX.

Unfortunately the thread has mixed comments about constitutional carry issues in Alabama, where county Sheriff's make money issuing carry permits with the issues of TX.

There have been a few LTC instructors whining about this but in TX the state issues Licenses To Carry and it's a break even operation at best.

Texas would have had constitutional carry several years ago but for the absolute idiots of Open Carry Texas and Open Tarrant County who thought threatening lawmakers in their offices and and at their homes was a smart move.

Instead, the lawmakers went from requiring licensing for concealed carry via the TX CHL to requiring licensing for both open and concealed carry as a little "fuck you" to the Open Carry idiots.

Where does the licensing money go?

[HCM]

Where does the licensing money go?

The fees collected by TX DPS for LTCs go to the state general fund and are a break even proposition (at best) for the state for the man hours involved. Finger prints for LTC’s are fine by private contractors.

Sheriffs in Texas are not involved in the LTC process.

[KellyinAvon]

The fees collected by TX DPS for LTCs go to the state general fund and are a break even proposition (at best) for the state for the man hours involved. Finger prints for LTC’s are fine by private contractors.

Sheriffs in Texas are not involved in the LTC process.

I asked because a lot of the LEO opposition in Indiana was money-driven. A significant part of the licensing fees go to the local department. When the 5 year license became free effective 1 July 2020? Put it this way, there were more LEOs testifying in support of HB 1369 (Constitutional Carry) than opposing.

[HCM]

I asked because a lot of the LEO opposition in Indiana was money-driven. A significant part of the licensing fees go to the local department. When the 5 year license became free effective 1 July 2020? Put it this way, there were more LEOs testifying in support of HB 1369 (Constitutional Carry) than opposing.

That’s apparently the case in AL as well but not in TX.

The usual liberal city chiefs have come out against constitutional carry on a “blood in the streets” argument here and of course some of (the worst of) the LTC instructors.

[jetfire]

Real talk: you know who can get fucked? Every single Concealed Carry instructor that was against this bill because they were worried about it cutting into their revenue.

[KellyinAvon]

That’s apparently the case in AL as well but not in TX.

The usual liberal city chiefs have come out against constitutional carry on a “blood in the streets” argument here and of course some of (the worst of) the LTC instructors.

Sounds familiar.

[AKDoug]

Real talk: you know who can get fucked? Every single Concealed Carry instructor that was against this bill because they were worried about it cutting into their revenue.
Them and Texans that are worried about whether or not a person is "educated" enough to carry. Get over yourselves. Vermont never had a license to carry, Alaska approved constitutional carry 17 years ago in June.. then 18 other states followed. There has been no blood in the streets because of this. There has been no epidemic of people shooting others in questionable self defense situations, and there has been no widespread problem with people carrying in prohibited places. I always have to laugh when someone tells me Texas is one of the best 2nd amendment friendly states.

[Edster]

That’s apparently the case in AL as well but not in TX.

The usual liberal city chiefs have come out against constitutional carry on a “blood in the streets” argument here and of course some of (the worst of) the LTC instructors.

This is why I wasn't the least bit surprised by the content of the article. When I saw it was the police chief in Fort Worth coming out against it and writing a letter to a state senator on behalf of the entire department, I saw normal big city politics.

Fort Worth likes to play up its frontier Cowtown image but it's no different than a lot of other urban areas.

The only thing that would surprise me is if the chiefs in Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas did not do the same.

Kudos to the Tarrant County Sheriff.

[Zincwarrior]

Them and Texans that are worried about whether or not a person is "educated" enough to carry. Get over yourselves. Vermont never had a license to carry, Alaska approved constitutional carry 17 years ago in June.. then 18 other states followed. There has been no blood in the streets because of this. There has been no epidemic of people shooting others in questionable self defense situations, and there has been no widespread problem with people carrying in prohibited places. I always have to laugh when someone tells me Texas is one of the best 2nd amendment friendly states.

The one difference of course is that we have the second largest population in the US and major cities. :rolleyes::p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[Caballoflaco]

The one difference of course is that we have the second largest population in the US and major cities. :rolleyes::p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

On the other hand there might be a few less instances where a dude who’s doing nothing wrong but carry a gun to protect himself from the shitty people who live in his neighborhood doesn’t run from or fight the cops if he gets pulled over.

Or the abused woman who finds out her ex is back in town and plans to kill her this weekend will be able to legally carry a gun and not have to worry about catching a charge.

[Erik]

The one difference of course is that we have the second largest population in the US and major cities. :rolleyes::p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

And that matters why?

[Zincwarrior]

And that matters why?
It doesn't. I am just jealous that Vermont has something called "autumn", and not "less summer." :cool:

The only negative I am really thinking could occur is an increase in 30.07 signs like occurred last time.

[Trooper224]

The one difference of course is that we have the second largest population in the US and major cities. :rolleyes::p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

You think that's a good thing. Your state is fucked. Texans need to get over themselves, the rest of us are no more impressed with you than we are with California.

[LittleLebowski]

The one difference of course is that we have the second largest population in the US and major cities. :rolleyes::p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

Ok, so Texas is going to erupt into a bloodbath? What’s your point?

[Borderland]

You think that's a good thing. Your state is fucked. Texans need to get over themselves, the rest of us are no more impressed with you than we are with California.

Wait until the rest of CA gets there. The term Texian may once again apply, but this time to Californians who moved to Texas.

[jh9]

Ok, so Texas is going to erupt into a bloodbath? What’s your point?

Erupt in a bloodbath? In this economy?!

Oh, pshaw sir. I say pshaw. We will not reach Carrie level "bloodbath" until 9mm is back to $10 a box. And possibly not even then. :p

[Zincwarrior]

My point: Vermont is tiny with a small population. Alaska is hyper rural with a small population. Texas is a different environment with five major cities, and a history of regulation from Jim Crow times. As a result, they are not comparable.

I agree that there are states with less restrictive firearms laws, but none with a similar population level or density, so this is a bit of a change for us. Its an evolution of our current laws which are permissive around vehicles and transport, locations, and unlicensed open carry of long guns.


(As an aside, Kansas had some excellent steakhouses the last time I was there.)

[WobblyPossum]

Real talk: you know who can get fucked? Every single Concealed Carry instructor that was against this bill because they were worried about it cutting into their revenue.

This. So much this. I hope the revised senate version passes the house and this gets signed into law. I don’t live in Texas but a state that size passing constitutional carry legislation would be a big deal for the pro-2A side. We’d be well on our way to half the country not requiring permits to carry concealed.

[Borderland]

This. So much this. I hope the revised senate version passes the house and this gets signed into law. I don’t live in Texas but a state that size passing constitutional carry legislation would be a big deal for the pro-2A side. We’d be well on our way to half the country not requiring permits to carry concealed.

And then the supreme court will have to bend a little on the right to keep and bear arms. If they say it's a constitutional right, may issue in states like CA and NY is history.

[Zincwarrior]

This. So much this. I hope the revised senate version passes the house and this gets signed into law. I don’t live in Texas but a state that size passing constitutional carry legislation would be a big deal for the pro-2A side. We’d be well on our way to half the country not requiring permits to carry concealed.

Can you clarify what are the revised Senate version differences?

[WobblyPossum]

Can you clarify what are the revised Senate version differences?

I don’t have a clue. All I read was that the bill passed the house and went to the senate. The senate amended the bill and sent it back to the house.

[Zincwarrior]

Status as reported yesterday. Senate version rejected so they are going to hash it out in private committee.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/05/12/texas-constitutional-carry-handguns-legislation/

[AKDoug]

My point: Vermont is tiny with a small population. Alaska is hyper rural with a small population. Texas is a different environment with five major cities, and a history of regulation from Jim Crow times. As a result, they are not comparable.

I agree that there are states with less restrictive firearms laws, but none with a similar population level or density, so this is a bit of a change for us. Its an evolution of our current laws which are permissive around vehicles and transport, locations, and unlicensed open carry of long guns.


(As an aside, Kansas had some excellent steakhouses the last time I was there.) Arizona has a population density twice what Texas has. They also have very similar border issues that you have. They haven't had any changes in handgun violence directly related to constitutional carry in the decade they've had it. Arizona is actually what started this modern trend and I solute them for it.

I'll not resort to personal attacks, but I seriously don't get people like you that have the elitist view that a U.S. citizen needs a permit to exercise an inalienable and constitutionally protected right.

[Borderland]

Arizona has a population density twice what Texas has. They also have very similar border issues that you have. They haven't had any changes in handgun violence directly related to constitutional carry in the decade they've had it. Arizona is actually what started this modern trend and I solute them for it.

I'll not resort to personal attacks, but I seriously don't get people like you that have the elitist view that a U.S. citizen needs a permit to exercise an inalienable and constitutionally protected right.

Unfortunately there are many people who carry concealed that feel that people should be forced to comply with state restrictions. I might point out that there is no provision in any federal code for people who carry concealed to be permitted. Granted, there are some restrictions but no permitting process.

Texas has a long history of denying people the right to carry.


Until 1870, Texas, like most other states, did not prohibit white men from carrying
deadly weapons like knives and pistols; but from the early years of the Republic of Texas, laws
limited slaves’ and Indians’ access to arms and circumscribed the legal uses of weapons. The
1870 ban on carrying weapons in public remained on the books and substantively unchanged
until 1973. Throughout the eras of Jim Crow and Civil Rights, this strict measure could be
selectively enforced at the local level to reinforce white supremacy. The spirit of the law lived on
for another twenty years in the state’s revised penal code before finally being dismantled in
1995.

https://addran.tcu.edu/history/files/Dissertation-Prospectus-2.pdf

[jh9]

Arizona has a population density twice what Texas has. They also have very similar border issues that you have.

Yeah, Phoenix is the obvious counterpoint. It's one of the largest (and fastest growing) metro areas in the country.

[Zincwarrior]

I'll not resort to personal attacks, but I seriously don't get people like you that have the elitist view that a U.S. citizen needs a permit to exercise an inalienable and constitutionally protected right.
? ? ?

I typed no such thing on this thread. I don't believe anyone typed any such thing on this thread.

Arizona also an interesting take on Mexican food. I like it.

[4given]

My state has had Constitutional Carry for five or six years. Blood isn't running in the streets and crime is no worse than before. It's really a "nothing to see here" issue.


Same for Idaho. We passed Constitutional Carry in 2016 and it has worked out just fine. We still issue a standard permit and an enhanced permit if someone wants them. The enhanced permit requires additional training and features reciprocity with 38 other states.

[jh9]

https://addran.tcu.edu/history/files/Dissertation-Prospectus-2.pdf

Yeah, Jim Crow and gun control go way back.

The problem with the permitting systems in general is that it seeks to make sure the "right sort" have and the "wrong sort" have not. It shouldn't take much imagination how anyone here could end up as the "wrong sort" depending on which way the local political winds blow. Look at NYC where the "right sort" is absolutely guaranteed to exclude you and everyone else on this board. But I bet Bloomberg and co don't have a problem making sure they (or at least their private security) get the papal dispensation needed to carry wherever they want to in the city.

"Felon in possession" is already illegal in all 50 states. That should sort out 90% of the abuses. The remainder...yeah I'd rather people at least sit through the class so an instructor can reel in the yahoos but not at the expense of that class becoming just another barrier to keeping the "wrong sort" out.

[Borderland]

Yeah, Jim Crow and gun control go way back.

The problem with the permitting systems in general is that it seeks to make sure the "right sort" have and the "wrong sort" have not. It shouldn't take much imagination how anyone here could end up as the "wrong sort" depending on which way the local political winds blow. Look at NYC where the "right sort" is absolutely guaranteed to exclude you and everyone else on this board. But I bet Bloomberg and co don't have a problem making sure they (or at least their private security) get the papal dispensation needed to carry wherever they want to in the city.

"Felon in possession" is already illegal in all 50 states. That should sort out 90% of the abuses. The remainder...yeah I'd rather people at least sit through the class so an instructor can reel in the yahoos but not at the expense of that class becoming just another barrier to keeping the "wrong sort" out.

Then the state should pay for the class to make sure there is no financial burden for anyone. What do you think the chances are of that happening? My feeling is states are moving away from the permitting process because of the financial burden on them that has no law enforcement/public safety benefit. Some states have studied this before moving to permit less concealed carry. They just don't want to fund it anymore even with user fees. A substantial part of the cost is to the tax payer.

[GyroF-16]

I might point out that there is no provision in any federal code for people who carry concealed to be permitted. Granted, there are some restrictions but no permitting process.


This mindset absolutely turns the concept of liberty on its head.

In our system of government, laws are passed to PROHIBIT certain behaviors, not to PERMIT certain things.
One does not need the PERMISSION of the government to do things.
The federal government has certainly grown beyond what the Founders envisioned, but we aren’t yet at the point where citizens need to start by asking whether they have permission to do things.

ETA - Or, did I misunderstand, and this was what you were saying?

[Borderland]

This mindset absolutely turns the concept of liberty on its head.

In our system of government, laws are passed to PROHIBIT certain behaviors, not to PERMIT certain things.
One does not need the PERMISSION of the government to do things.
The federal government has certainly grown beyond what the Founders envisioned, but we aren’t yet at the point where citizens need to start by asking whether they have permission to do things.

ETA - Or, did I misunderstand, and this was what you were saying?

States are able to shelve carry permits because there is no federal law that says it's illegal to carry without a permit, as it should be. In reality, some states see no reason to do anything except what the federal code calls for regarding firearms.

[Borderland]

deleted......

[Hot Sauce]

Mobile, AL sheriff fires State lawmaker because of his support for Constitutional Carry (https://www.al.com/news/2021/05/mobile-sheriff-state-lawmaker-not-longer-captain-due-to-differing-political-views.html)


[Sheriff Sam Cochran's spokesman] told AL.com that State Rep. Shane Stringer's sponsorship of legislation supportive of constitutional carry ran afoul of the Sheriff’s views on the issue.

Stringer has also backed legislation forbidding state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing new federal gun laws or executive orders, which has been a concern among law enforcement personnel as well.

[Wendell]

Mobile, AL sheriff fires State lawmaker because of his support for Constitutional Carry (https://www.al.com/news/2021/05/mobile-sheriff-state-lawmaker-not-longer-captain-due-to-differing-political-views.html)

I wonder whether that'll come back to bite the Sheriff (come election time).

[AKDoug]

I wonder whether that'll come back to bite the Sheriff (come election time). It might if the guy that he fired runs against him.

[RancidSumo]

It doesn't. I am just jealous that Vermont has something called "autumn", and not "less summer." :cool:

The only negative I am really thinking could occur is an increase in 30.07 signs like occurred last time.

You mean the signs where if you ignore it and carry anyway (1) nobody will know and (2) if they do know all they can do is ask you to leave?

[DDTSGM]

(As an aside, Kansas had some excellent steakhouses the last time I was there.)

Where did you eat?

[DDTSGM]

Mobile, AL sheriff fires State lawmaker because of his support for Constitutional Carry (https://www.al.com/news/2021/05/mobile-sheriff-state-lawmaker-not-longer-captain-due-to-differing-political-views.html)

This was priceless:

“I think they agreed to disagree,” Myles said of the two. “But when you work for a company, you have to abide by the company’s philosophies and rules especially when you are part of a staff where everyone answers to the Sheriff. We have to be of one accord.”

So apparently the elected Representative needs to run all his votes by the Sheriff.

Need a new Sheriff. I'll bet he still gets paid for each prisoner's meals and feeds them horsecock and kool-aide to make money on the meals.

[Wendell]

Schedule of Cash Receipts, Disbursements and Balances
August 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020
Pistol Permit Fees $3,469,238.00
https://examiners.alabama.gov/PDFLink.aspx?IDReport=5985

(https://examiners.alabama.gov/PDFLink.aspx?IDReport=5985)Sheriff’s Fund – This fund is used to account for the disbursement of revenues derived from the sale of pistol permits in Mobile County. In accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Section 45-49-233, this fund is to be used exclusively for law enforcement purposes and in the discharge of the Sheriff’s Office as he sees fit.
https://examiners.alabama.gov/PDFLink.aspx?IDReport=5985

[HCM]

You mean the signs where if you ignore it and carry anyway (1) nobody will know and (2) if they do know all they can do is ask you to leave?

30.07 signs are specific to open carry. So everybody will know because the OC’er will point out their sheepdog special to any who fail to notice on their own.

Oh, and for both 30.06 and 30.07 they can ask you to leave and never comeback in the form of a criminal trespass warning.

So it depends on whether you care about going ever back there without being arrested.

[RancidSumo]

30.07 signs are specific to open carry. So everybody will know because the OC’er will point out their sheepdog special to any who fail to notice on their own.

Oh, and for both 30.06 and 30.07 they can ask you to leave and never comeback in the form of a criminal trespass warning.

So it depends on whether you care about going ever back there without being arrested.

I’m happy to not go back to any place that asks me to leave. Fortunately, despite never paying attention to any 30.06 sign I’ve ever seen (and also never looking for them), that has never happened to me.

[Hot Sauce]

Schedule of Cash Receipts, Disbursements and Balances
August 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020
Pistol Permit Fees $3,469,238.00
https://examiners.alabama.gov/PDFLink.aspx?IDReport=5985

(https://examiners.alabama.gov/PDFLink.aspx?IDReport=5985)Sheriff’s Fund – This fund is used to account for the disbursement of revenues derived from the sale of pistol permits in Mobile County. In accordance with the Code of Alabama 1975, Section 45-49-233, this fund is to be used exclusively for law enforcement purposes and in the discharge of the Sheriff’s Office as he sees fit.
https://examiners.alabama.gov/PDFLink.aspx?IDReport=5985


And that's the rub. Follow the money.

[Caballoflaco]

This was priceless:

“I think they agreed to disagree,” Myles said of the two. “But when you work for a company, you have to abide by the company’s philosophies and rules especially when you are part of a staff where everyone answers to the Sheriff. We have to be of one accord.”

So apparently the elected Representative needs to run all his votes by the Sheriff.

Need a new Sheriff. I'll bet he still gets paid for each prisoner's meals and feeds them horsecock and kool-aide to make money on the meals.

It’s common for newly elected Sheriffs here to gut upper level management when they’re elected and appoint people who will be “loyal” to their policies.

And yeah, the jail-food thing still happens including one sheriff buying himself a sweet beach house with food funds, but he got to go to federal prison and a couple of other Sheriffs have been put away by the feds for similar activities in the last few years too.

[LittleLebowski]

Arizona has a population density twice what Texas has. They also have very similar border issues that you have. They haven't had any changes in handgun violence directly related to constitutional carry in the decade they've had it. Arizona is actually what started this modern trend and I solute them for it.

I'll not resort to personal attacks, but I seriously don't get people like you that have the elitist view that a U.S. citizen needs a permit to exercise an inalienable and constitutionally protected right.

Boom.

[jtcarm]

My last renewal was online. I checked the box that I read and understood the law updates. Not a lot of dedication to teaching the legal updates. I’ll see what the renewal looks like next time round. I still have 2 years to go.


Same here. Clicked & paid online and the new license showed up maybe 2 weeks later.

These are the same histrionics we heard 25+ years ago when Texas was debating CHL for the first time. There were big city chiefs who vocally opposed it (I remember Rathburn of DPD being particularly obnoxious.)

We heard it again about open carry.

The state hasn’t turned into Dodge City and won’t this time around.

[jtcarm]

I think the biggest beneficiaries of constitutional carry aren’t “gun people” and the 2A crowd. It’s the poor folks who actually live in shitty neighborhoods and can’t affiord the time or money for a class. Those same people are also far more likely than the average member of PF to be a victim of violent crime.

That’s been John Lotts take on licensing: it discriminates against the poor.

IIRC, I spent well over $300 getting my LTC: $140, application, $10 fingerprinting, something like $200 for class.

One thing I rarely see mentioned is LTC is a de facto registration of oneself as a gun owner.

[Zincwarrior]

You mean the signs where if you ignore it and carry anyway (1) nobody will know and (2) if they do know all they can do is ask you to leave?

Its actually a crime to ignore it. Thats effective notice under the statute.

[Zincwarrior]

Where did you eat?

I am not sure. Its been a decade and we were there on business.

[willie]

Some--in general and not particularly here--object to constitutional carry but will not publicly admit the reason. They are are aware of the high homicide rate among minority males in the under 30 age bracket, and they think that constitutional carry will contribute to more violence among this group. Many who hold this view are minority community leaders. Having worked in the inner city, I interacted with minority persons who had this viewpoint.

About 2nd Amendment advocates. Many among this group use PayPal and think nothing of it. I find that odd.

[TCinVA]

They can just get the fuck over it.

[RoyGBiv]

Looks like the conference committee has reached a final bill.
One vote in each chamber and the Governors signature remains.

https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2021/05/21/lt-gov-dan-patrick-announcement-of-hb-1927-agreement/


“I congratulate Rep. Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, and Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, for reaching a full agreement on Constitutional Carry – HB 1927. This legislation restores our Second Amendment rights and upholds every Texan’s right to self-defense. HB 1927 is a historic bill and a national model. It includes the thinking of national gun rights advocates and many in Texas law enforcement and affirms our commitment to protect the rights of gun owners and the safety of those in law enforcement.

Still waiting for the committe version to be posted to see what's going to be accomplished.

[JAD]

IN a general sense thats true. But one method requires you to actually read and understand the law at least to a minimum level. The other does not.
I’ve taken a TX ccw class. No basic understanding is verfied, nor basic competency— which is irrelevant, since you need not demonstrate comprehension or competence to exercise other more dangerous constitutional rights like the franchise, free speech, assembly, etc.

[jh9]

I’ve taken a TX ccw class. No basic understanding is verfied, nor basic competency—

The current LTC requirements involve a written exam and a shooting component.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing/faq/training-requirements-faq


An applicant may attend LTC classroom training and demonstrate handgun proficiency (shooting) with a Texas Qualified LTC Instructor, or

An applicant may receive LTC online training (classroom only) through an Approved Online Course Provider who has been approved in Texas. After, successfully passing the online classroom portion, an applicant must attend 1-2 hours of range instruction class and demonstrate handgun proficiency (shooting) with a Texas Qualified LTC Instructor.

It stretches the definition of "basic" since it's like 15 multiple choice questions and all but like 5 rounds are shot from nearly contact distance... but it's there.

Whether or not it should be is another question.

[olstyn]

That’s been John Lotts take on licensing: it discriminates against the poor.

IIRC, I spent well over $300 getting my LTC: $140, application, $10 fingerprinting, something like $200 for class.

One thing I rarely see mentioned is LTC is a de facto registration of oneself as a gun owner.

Hundreds of dollars is a significant amount of money for a lot of people (me included). Spending ~$200 to get my first permit up here in MN didn't break me, but it definitely had some financial impact. I can easily imagine how it would be difficult for a lot of people and impossible for some, especially when you add on the cost of actually buying a gun in the first place.

[Zincwarrior]

The current LTC requirements involve a written exam and a shooting component.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing/faq/training-requirements-faq
Admittedly when I took the class it was all day and included 25 yard shots.


It stretches the definition of "basic" since it's like 15 multiple choice questions and all but like 5 rounds are shot from nearly contact distance... but it's there.

Whether or not it should be is another question.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How do the signs change? Can you still get a LTC for reciprocity and skipping the checks at purchase? As far as the shooting test, while simple for us, taking it a few times makes you shudder at some. Loading round backwards in the gun, shooting the targets next to yours. Rounds going into the sky!

As an aside, I used to take my kid to a local range in TX and she pointed at the ceiling right over us. Sigh. The range master said they happened a month after opening. A new range opened and I went there and the range master was showing me the fancy gadgets. I looked at the ceiling and he sighed. Then he pointed down range to a glass partition between lanes with a big impact in it. Geez!

So I understand the issue but some folks - wow! The bill is interesting from a LEO standpoint - certainly it seems that just stopping folks to see if they are carrying is a big NO-NO. That should be popular with segments of the population that think they are being stopped too much. Flame on - unintended consequence?

[JAD]

The current LTC requirements involve a written exam and a shooting component.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing/faq/training-requirements-faq



It stretches the definition of "basic" since it's like 15 multiple choice questions and all but like 5 rounds are shot from nearly contact distance... but it's there.

Whether or not it should be is another question.

I watched people take that test and shoot that test snd get passed. I’ll repeat that there is no demonstration of competency or comprehension required.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's funny that while NYS is a horror in some counties, in Erie - the stumbling blocks are references and reasons - plus it takes some time. There is a class but no tests and shooting skills test. I note the local range also has the walls and ceilings peppered with holes. The expense was less.

[RoyGBiv]

Looks like the conference committee has reached a final bill.
One vote in each chamber and the Governors signature remains.

https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2021/05/21/lt-gov-dan-patrick-announcement-of-hb-1927-agreement/

Still waiting for the committee version to be posted to see what's going to be accomplished.

Conference committee version was approved by the Texas House last night. Only the Senate vote remains, as Gov Abbott has already expressed his looking forward to signing it.

Committee version doesn't muck things up too much. Hopefully next session we can look past this and start working on reducing the number of off limits places for people with licenses.

Committee reported version is here: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927

[Zincwarrior]

Thank you again Roy.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So will an unintended consequence be that the current signage will be replace by total ban signs?

Now, you can ban open, or concealed separately. I knew places that did the open ban but not the concealed carry. Will that go away? So HEB banned OC, will they take out all guns - for example? Can you still have the separate signage? I'm sure some firms will get pressure for the total bans from their liability hounds of hell.

That's not a good thing.

[Rex G]

One unintended consequence, if I read it correctly, is that the legally-correct wording for the signs, to be posted by businesses and other entities, that will be in effect on September First, will have the word “firearms” on them. Texas law has, historically, been very long-gun-friendly. The signage that we see, at places that now prohibit licensed HANDGUN carry, are worded so as to only apply to handguns, which means that a discreetly cased/covered long gun now flies “under the radar.” The new, September First signage will, it seems, prohibit all firearms. The 18”, pistol-grip-only shotgun, inside a yoga mat bag, the “trapper” carbine, inside a lacrosse racquet bag or camera tripod case, and the LAW-foldered AR15/M4, inside a backpack, and even the take-down rifle or shotgun, inside an innocent-appearing pack or case, will suddenly become legally unwelcome at so very many more places, on September First.

I am fortunate, in being able to carry under the provisions of the LEOSA, and, within Texas, under the provisions of a parallel-worded state law, but one of the things that happened during the panic-demic was that police ranges closed, for months, resulting in my annual qual expiring, which, for a while, put me back into having to comply with the law regarding private citizen firearms carry. And, being an honorably-retired LEO/peace officer only applies to handgun carry, so, signs that prohibits all firearms will have an effect, especially on my LAW-foldered DDM4, which I can now tote almost everywhere in Texas.

[RoyGBiv]

So will an unintended consequence be that the current signage will be replace by total ban signs?

Now, you can ban open, or concealed separately. I knew places that did the open ban but not the concealed carry. Will that go away? So HEB banned OC, will they take out all guns - for example? Can you still have the separate signage? I'm sure some firms will get pressure for the total bans from their liability hounds of hell.

That's not a good thing.

A third ugly sign will be required. 30.05. The "Firearms" vs "Handgun" language is already being debated. We may need the AG to clarify, or, it may mean that you can ban non-licensed from carrying "firearms", but licensed can only be banned from carrying "handguns"... Definitely a possible flaw. Still need to see the non lined version once adopted. The committee version has a lot of changes out of context and is not simple to read.

Also good.... if you get caught not having seen the signs, it's reduced to a $200 fine unless you are asked to leave and fail to do so.

[RoyGBiv]

One unintended consequence, if I read it correctly, is that the legally-correct wording for the signs, to be posted by businesses and other entities, that will be in effect on September First, will have the word “firearms” on them. Texas law has, historically, been very long-gun-friendly. The signage that we see, at places that now prohibit licensed HANDGUN carry, are worded so as to only apply to handguns, which means that a discreetly cased/covered long gun now flies “under the radar.” The new, September First signage will, it seems, prohibit all firearms. The 18”, pistol-grip-only shotgun, inside a yoga mat bag, the “trapper” carbine, inside a lacrosse racquet bag or camera tripod case, and the LAW-foldered AR15/M4, inside a backpack, and even the take-down rifle or shotgun, inside an innocent-appearing pack or case, will suddenly become legally unwelcome at so very many more places, on September First.

I am fortunate, in being able to carry under the provisions of the LEOSA, and, within Texas, under the provisions of a parallel-worded state law, but one of the things that happened during the panic-demic was that police ranges closed, for months, resulting in my annual qual expiring, which, for a while, put me back into having to comply with the law regarding private citizen firearms carry. And, being an honorably-retired LEO/peace officer only applies to handgun carry, so, signs that prohibits all firearms will have an effect, especially on my LAW-foldered DDM4, which I can now tote almost everywhere in Texas.

AFAIK, only 30.05 will have "Firearms" signage, which applies only to non-licensed carry. Per my reply to Glenn... will need the dust to settle before knowing clearly.

[OlongJohnson]

They have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it.

[RoyGBiv]

They have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it.

Heh... Even when they pass it, and integrate it into the PC posted online, it's still hard to read. Many pieces of gun-related PC are rife with sections that read "the following text was inserted on..... ", so you still have to read the original text, then the added text out of context. It's frustrating.

example: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm


Text of subsection as added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 437 (H.B. 910 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00910F.HTM)), Sec. 47

[RoyGBiv]

Texas Senate passed the committee bill tonight. Gov Abbott has already indicated his enthusiasm to sign.

On 1-Sep-21, Texas will become the largest state where citizens will be free to carry guns without needing a license from The Man.

Bueno.


https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927

[WobblyPossum]

Awesome! Congratulations guys!

[Ed L]

So will an unintended consequence be that the current signage will be replace by total ban signs?

Now, you can ban open, or concealed separately. I knew places that did the open ban but not the concealed carry. Will that go away? So HEB banned OC, will they take out all guns - for example? Can you still have the separate signage? I'm sure some firms will get pressure for the total bans from their liability hounds of hell.

That's not a good thing.

This is my concern--that places will just decide to simplify it and ban the legal carry of all guns on their premises to make things simple for themselves.

[RoyGBiv]

This is my concern--that places will just decide to simplify it and ban the legal carry of all guns on their premises to make things simple for themselves.

https://i.imgur.com/ib4ZeML.jpg?2

[KellyinAvon]

Congrats to the Texans on becoming the 21st State to establish Constitutional Carry.

Fellow Hoosiers: we got work to do. 344 days until the Primary Election.

[Rex G]

This is my concern--that places will just decide to simplify it and ban the legal carry of all guns on their premises to make things simple for themselves.

This is my concern, too. You managed to say it more clearly, with far fewer words.

[Ed L]

This is my concern, too. You managed to say it more clearly, with far fewer words.

Which is something I so seldom do.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree reading it as an entire bill and its interactions with previous law is a total pain. So, here's my question - IIRC, it was in the law that employers could not ban LTC folks from having guns in the business' parking lots. This was particularly important for private colleges and universities where carry was banned (due to the campus carry giving them an out - stupid!). Is it still in force for LTC holders and parking lots? What about constitutional carriers? Are they covered? I'm not going to dig through all that editing - so if someone knows I'd appreciate it.

Since I don't work there anymore, it's just a moot point for me, but I still have friends who do.

[RoyGBiv]

I agree reading it as an entire bill and its interactions with previous law is a total pain. So, here's my question - IIRC, it was in the law that employers could not ban LTC folks from having guns in the business' parking lots. This was particularly important for private colleges and universities where carry was banned (due to the campus carry giving them an out - stupid!). Is it still in force for LTC holders and parking lots? What about constitutional carriers? Are they covered? I'm not going to dig through all that editing - so if someone knows I'd appreciate it.

Since I don't work there anymore, it's just a moot point for me, but I still have friends who do.

Campus carry is TX PC 411.2031
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm

I don't see anything in the Constitutional Carry Bill that changes anything about 411.2031 except for moving the definition of "Premises" from PC 46.035 (which goes away with this bill) to 46.03.

The "Parking Lot Law", PC 52.061, also remains unchanged other than moving the referenced definition of Premises from 46.035 to 46.03.

IANAL. Just my opinion. Worth what you paid for it. :cool:

[jh9]

A third ugly sign will be required. 30.05. The "Firearms" vs "Handgun" language is already being debated. We may need the AG to clarify, or, it may mean that you can ban non-licensed from carrying "firearms", but licensed can only be banned from carrying "handguns"... Definitely a possible flaw. Still need to see the non lined version once adopted. The committee version has a lot of changes out of context and is not simple to read.

Also good.... if you get caught not having seen the signs, it's reduced to a $200 fine unless you are asked to leave and fail to do so.

So with all the ambiguity, is the 3rd "30.05" sign the likely solution or are they going to update the existing 30.06 and 30.07 signs to apply to licensed and unlicensed both?

Wasn't there an update to the TABC blue sign that was coming as well? I never did get a straight answer on those regarding things like saps/blackjacks/etc. I think I saw one version of the sign that had changed the wording to include "except if that weapon is a handgun" but now I don't see it anywhere on the internet.

[RoyGBiv]

So with all the ambiguity, is the 3rd "30.05" sign the likely solution or are they going to update the existing 30.06 and 30.07 signs to apply to licensed and unlicensed both?

Wasn't there an update to the TABC blue sign that was coming as well? I never did get a straight answer on those regarding things like saps/blackjacks/etc. I think I saw one version of the sign that had changed the wording to include "except if that weapon is a handgun" but now I don't see it anywhere on the internet.

30.05 will apply to unlicensed and .06 and .07 will apply to licensed.
There is already debate about "what if a business only posts 06 and 07, can I carry because they didn't post 05?"...
I think it'll take a while for the dust to settle and whatever flaws in this bill will get a fix next session.

Regarding TABC code... The Blue "Unlicensed Possession" signs go away... 11.041 and 61.11.

Regarding weapons other than handguns... I'm not sure what happens when the unlicensed possession sign goes away... The current sign says "unlawful for a person to carry a weapon on the premises unless the weapon is a handgun the person is licensed to carry".... So.. if this sign goes away, is it ok to carry any legal weapon? I don't see this addressed in the bill, but may have missed it.

[RoyGBiv]

The cleaned up Enrolled version is now available here: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927
Much easier to read, but, still digesting.

[Stephanie B]

I think the biggest beneficiaries of constitutional carry aren’t “gun people” and the 2A crowd. It’s the poor folks who actually live in shitty neighborhoods and can’t affiord the time or money for a class. Those same people are also far more likely than the average member of PF to be a victim of violent crime.


That’s been John Lotts take on licensing: it discriminates against the poor.

That's also been the basic issue with the demonization of "Saturday Night Specials". It was a coded push to ensure that those people couldn't afford a gun.

That sort of classism continues. The editor of the local bird-cage liner had this response to people who pointed out that licensing requirements adversely impacted those who were of low-income:

As for the cost of meeting these firearm requirements making it more difficult for low-income individuals to obtain guns, that is probably true. However, my guess is that people living in low-income neighborhoods have many higher priorities — such as improving failing schools, access to quality affordable housing, improving health outcomes and lowering crime rates — than getting access to firearms. (https://www.theday.com/columnists/20210321/reader-asked-how-come-were-tough-on-guns-easy-on-voting-heres-why)
Another reasonably comfortable white guy deciding just what it is that poor people need. Not much changes.

[OlongJohnson]

That's also been the basic issue with the demonization of "Saturday Night Specials". It was a coded push to ensure that those people couldn't afford a gun.

That sort of classism continues. The editor of the local bird-cage liner had this response to people who pointed out that licensing requirements adversely impacted those who were of low-income:

Another reasonably comfortable white guy deciding just what it is that poor people need. Not much changes.

People wanna lecture a bleeding person about diet and exercise.

[joshs]

That's also been the basic issue with the demonization of "Saturday Night Specials". It was a coded push to ensure that those people couldn't afford a gun.

That sort of classism continues. The editor of the local bird-cage liner had this response to people who pointed out that licensing requirements adversely impacted those who were of low-income:

Another reasonably comfortable white guy deciding just what it is that poor people need. Not much changes.

Exactly. As you point out, the actual justification for gun control is often classism and racism.

You're spot on with the old focus on Saturday Night Specials: https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990421/saturday-night-specials The formatting on that article is a bit odd because it has been moved at least twice to different content management platforms.

It's also easy to see that these problems persist when looking at a map of the states that have permitless carry. There are a number of states that many would consider very "pro-gun" that continue to resist permitless carry.

The good news for the future is that diffusion of certain policies (like concealed carry) is likely linked to changing attitudes on those same policies: https://curate.nd.edu/show/g732d794517

[HeavyDuty]

Local news reports the TX Gov signed this yesterday?

[RoyGBiv]

Local news reports the TX Gov signed this yesterday?

Indeed it was. :cool:
https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1927

I'm reading rumors about a ceremony at the Alamo today.

[Zincwarrior]

Is there a summary of the final bill anywhere, something with decent detail and not the usual opinion blah blah?

[CleverNickname]

Is there a summary of the final bill anywhere, something with decent detail and not the usual opinion blah blah?

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

[KellyinAvon]

Congrats to the Texans!

[jh9]

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

Correct me if I'm wrong but the new 46.03 sign looks like a blanket "fuck you" sign that for all intents and purposes will replace the old TABC blue sign.

edit: pages 12-13 list "prohibited places" which include polling places, bars, courts, etc. So I guess it's not that bad, but I'm foggy on how it is effectively any different than a 51% sign.

[Rex G]

For those of us who have appreciated being able to discreetly and legally tote long guns into places where no handgun could ever legally go, even for those with Licenses To Carry A Handgun, this new bill represents a net LOSS of freedom. (Please note that I am not one of those who has ever liked openly-carrying long guns AT people.) In a legal environment where that which is not prohibited, is, in effect, permitted, there with be fewer places where long guns are permissible, on September First.

One still needs a License To Carry A Handgun, to truly have legal cover under the federal GFSZ, anyway, so, on a practical level, one will still need to remain licensed, on and after September First. (In urban area, schools seem to be just about everywhere.) A reduction in long gun freedoms is a bitter pill, that comes with the passage of this bill.

I say this as one who believes that the Second Amendment is more about having rifles, to resist tyranny, as seen at Lexington, and Concord, than about carrying handguns.

It will be nice, I reckon, not having to actually carry a license, (or my LEOSA ID/qual card,) when I step out to walk the dogs, in the neighborhood. Especially in the mornings, when it is easy to misplace or forget things, before caffeine has had a chance to take effect. The expired driver’s license, that I keep in an internal pocket of my waist pouch, will suffice, in case I faw down and bump my head. On September First, I will have gained the privilege of being legally lazy. Sigh.

[jh9]

For those of us who have appreciated being able to discreetly and legally tote long guns into places where no handgun could ever legally go, even for those with Licenses To Carry A Handgun, this new bill represents a net LOSS of freedom. (Please note that I am not one of those who has ever liked openly-carrying long guns AT people.) In a legal environment where that which is not prohibited, is, in effect, permitted, there with be fewer places where long guns are permissible, on September First.

One still needs a License To Carry A Handgun, to truly have legal cover under the federal GFSZ, anyway, so, on a practical level, one will still need to remain licensed, on and after September First. A reduction in long gun freedoms is a bitter pill, that comes with the passage of this bill.

I say this as one who believes that the Second Amendment is more about having rifles, to resist tyranny, as seen at Lexington, and Concord, than about carrying handguns.

It will be nice, I reckon, not having to actually carry a license, (or my LEOSA ID/qual card,) when I step out to walk the dogs, in the neighborhood. Especially in the mornings, when it is easy to misplace or forget things, before caffeine has had a chance to take effect.

Yeah, IDK. This seems like it's got some pretty big flaws, though I could be misunderstanding things.

The new 46.03 sign seems like it might be a pretty notable step back. I assume it has the same 3rd degree felony consequences as a 51% sign?

And the old 30.06 and 30.07 signs had the "gunbuster" requirement didn't they? Wouldn't that by itself qualify as notice under 30.05? This is the big one to me. Are places that have existing 30.07 signs effectively displaying 30.05 signs already?

Reality on the ground is that even in the heart of Liberal Downtown Austin the only place I've run into a 30.06 sign was at the courthouse when I was getting my passport. 30.07 signs are everywhere. 30.06 signs are rare.
If this results in a signpocalypse it's going to be a net loss, IMO.

[Rex G]

Yeah, IDK. This seems like it's got some pretty big flaws, though I could be misunderstanding things.

The new 46.03 sign seems like it might be a pretty notable step back. I assume it has the same 3rd degree felony consequences as a 51% sign?

And the old 30.06 and 30.07 signs had the "gunbuster" requirement didn't they? Wouldn't that by itself qualify as notice under 30.05? This is the big one to me. Are places that have existing 30.07 signs effectively displaying 30.05 signs already?

Reality on the ground is that even in the heart of Liberal Downtown Austin the only place I've run into a 30.06 sign was at the courthouse when I was getting my passport. 30.07 signs are everywhere. 30.06 signs are rare.
If this results in a signpocalypse it's going to be a net loss, IMO.

I believe that there will be a “signpocalypse,” in at least some urbanized areas. When licensed open carry was introduced, many places, around here, that had previously had no 30.06 signage, suddenly had both 30.06 and 30.07 signs. A person could walk right past a 30.06 and/or 30.07 sign, with a long gun, toted discreetly inside a yoga mat bag or tripod bag. Some places will, predictably, order the full suite of 30.05, 30.06, and 30.07 signs.

There was an interesting discussion, somewhere on P-F, within the past year or two, here, about places one could carry long guns, without legal penalty. I don’t want to say anything too “loudly,” on a publicly searchable forum, but until September, there are some gaps that still exist.

A specific group that will lose freedom will be those young folks who are not yet age 21, and therefore cannot yet get a handgun license. I owned, and toted, a collapsible-stocked Uzi Carbine, as a “bag gun,” back in the day, for example. Of course, my reaching age 21 did not mean I could start toting a handgun, because Texas did not yet have a license-to-carry in the early Eighties; that did not happen until the mid-Nineties. (I started carrying a handgun at age 22, when sworn as an LEO.) Young adults, not yet licensed to carry handguns, will not have it as good, as I did, when I was their age. It is not that toting a long gun will be generally curtailed, but there will be plenty of specific places that will become off-limits.

There is no need for me to type more, with my gimpy hand having a bad day. The link posted by Clevernickname seems to cover it well.

[CleverNickname]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the new 46.03 sign looks like a blanket "fuck you" sign that for all intents and purposes will replace the old TABC blue sign.

edit: pages 12-13 list "prohibited places" which include polling places, bars, courts, etc. So I guess it's not that bad, but I'm foggy on how it is effectively any different than a 51% sign.
The two signs are intended for different locations. Unlicensed carry in places that sell alcohol (but which aren't 51% locations) will be legal. Those locations will longer post the TABC blue sign, and the 46.03 sign does not replace it. However, the 46.03 and soon-to-be-obsolete TABC blue signs are similar in that even if a location is a statutorily carry-banned location, the lack of a sign has no effect on whether it's legal to to carry there.


Are places that have existing 30.07 signs effectively displaying 30.05 signs already?
I think it's more that a place posting a 30.05 will effectively be posting a 30.07 too. I really doubt it's going to go like this:

OCing person with LTC: <walks into a place with a 30.05 posted>
Proprietor: "Hey do you have an LTC?"
OCing person: Sure, see here! <shows his LTC>
Proprietor: Cool beans, come on in!

It's going to go:

OCing person with LTC: <walks into a place with 30.05 posted>
Proprietor: "Oh no! A gun! Leave now!"
OCing person: "Well I guess I was just given effective notice!"
... or if they're thick: "But I have an LTC!"
Proprietor: "I don't care, leave!"

[RoyGBiv]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the new 46.03 sign looks like a blanket "fuck you" sign that for all intents and purposes will replace the old TABC blue sign.

edit: pages 12-13 list "prohibited places" which include polling places, bars, courts, etc. So I guess it's not that bad, but I'm foggy on how it is effectively any different than a 51% sign.

CN covered most of it, but I have a slightly different angle....

There will no longer be a category of adults that fit the description of "unlicensed possession", since a license will not be required any longer, TABC will no longer have authority to prohibit guns, except for >51% locations (bars). The TABC Blue/Unlicensed Possession sign is abolished. /blue

Completely separately, 46.03 signs will prohibit unlicensed carry. Completely unrelated to alcohol sales.

[jh9]

CN covered most of it, but I have a slightly different angle....

There will no longer be a category of adults that fit the description of "unlicensed possession", since a license will not be required any longer, TABC will no longer have authority to prohibit guns, except for >51% locations (bars). The TABC Blue/Unlicensed Possession sign is abolished. /blue

Completely separately, 46.03 signs will prohibit unlicensed carry. Completely unrelated to alcohol sales.

Thanks to you and CN for taking the time to clarify this.

I think the only thing I'm still confused on is this link: https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

It indicates the 46.03 sign (prohibited places) applies to both license holders and unlicensed carry. Is that incorrect? The list of prohibited places on page 12 are called out as:


The following places are generally prohibited to a person carrying a handgun under the authority of Texas Constitutional Carry.This includes these premises

So, your take on 46.03 seems to be the right one.

The cliff notes version: for people with an LTC the only signs you care about now are 30.06, 30.07 and 51%. Does that sound right?

[Zincwarrior]

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf


thank you

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This document has the following:

72986

The prose and picture seems to indicate that you have reciprocity with New York. That is not true. New York recognizes no other states. (Glenn has his usual tantrum over GOP failure to push reciprocity, no Hillary isn't better, blah, blah).

Don't know about the other state, one might check.

Oops - I get it as corrected below. I'll leave the statement to document my mistake. The equating in color of VT, Maine and NY - huh?

[jh9]

This document has the following:

72986

The prose and picture seems to indicate that you have reciprocity with New York. That is not true. New York recognizes no other states. (Glenn has his usual tantrum over GOP failure to push reciprocity, no Hillary isn't better, blah, blah).

Don't know about the other state, one might check.

It's a misleading map. The states in red recognize the TX LTC. The states in white are either constitutional carry where the LTC isn't necessary or prohibited altogether.

I think they're trying to show which states you can carry in if you still get your LTC. But yeah, it's an odd way to visualize data. It kind of implies some similarity between CA and AZ on the carry front that definitely doesn't exist.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yeah, I get it. It confused me - duh.

[Borderland]

Do any of the legislators that write these laws ever test them for comprehension on the general public?

Somebody here recently said that legislators are the same people you went to high school with. Must be true.

[Guerrero]

Do any of the legislators that write these laws ever test them for comprehension on the general public?

That's not a bug; that's a feature.

[Borderland]

That's not a bug; that's a feature.

Reminds me of the WA Dept of Fish and wildlife regulations. You really have no hope of understanding those 100%. I've been cited a few times and I tried to comply after reading those. I finally just gave up in disgust and stopped buying a license.

[TheNewbie]

Do any of the legislators that write these laws ever test them for comprehension on the general public?

Somebody here recently said that legislators are the same people you went to high school with. Must be true.


No. They are another example of “experts” doing expert things.

[RoyGBiv]

Thanks to you and CN for taking the time to clarify this.

I think the only thing I'm still confused on is this link: https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/at/3grj768k34x5pqmmvhpc85c/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

It indicates the 46.03 sign (prohibited places) applies to both license holders and unlicensed carry. Is that incorrect? The list of prohibited places on page 12 are called out as:



So, your take on 46.03 seems to be the right one.

The cliff notes version: for people with an LTC the only signs you care about now are 30.06, 30.07 and 51%. Does that sound right?

Page 15 in that PDF gives a good summary.
I believe your Cliff's notes summary is correct.

[TAZ]

Do any of the legislators that write these laws ever test them for comprehension on the general public?

Somebody here recently said that legislators are the same people you went to high school with. Must be true.

Lol. They are the short bus folks most likely.

I’ve always thought that the process for a bill to become law should be changed to:

Legislature writes and votes.
Supreme Court reviews
Bill verbiage sent to random smattering if HS kids and they interpret the law. If the majority get the same answer bill goes to governor.

Laws are not meant to be understood by mere mortal, unwashed masses . They are written to be ambiguous and give fellow layers lots of revenue.

[joshs]

Do any of the legislators that write these laws ever test them for comprehension on the general public?

Somebody here recently said that legislators are the same people you went to high school with. Must be true.

The legislative process is often compared to sausage making; you don't want to see how it actually works. There are multiple groups that often need to be appeased, and that can regularly result in sloppy drafting as the draft is cycled between interest groups, lawmakers, and legislative drafters.

There are also considerations of not wanting to open certain code sections to prevent them from being amended (amendments not germane), so odd drafting has to be done to work around those sections.

[randyho]

No. They are another example of “experts” doing expert things.
"Top men"

[Wendell]

"Top men"

For millenials, and post-millenials, here is the reference...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M>