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

[KellyinAvon]

Congrats to the Texans!

[jh9]

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/5Z10RK5F/...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/...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/...Pg-Digital.pdf

thank you

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This document has the following:



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?