TX Constitutional carry, deal reached

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. I had thought that the bill might die, in the conference committee, from one of the amendments, added in the state senate, serving as a poison pill.

I got the e-mail alert from NRA-ILA. It did not provide a link to any final form of the bill. That may not happen until the governor signs it.
 
Got a mail from TSRA and they are optimistic but until it's signed no celebration. The Antis around here heads are exploding right now...
 
What's the signage rules for businesses now? Any change? Been awhile but the 30.06/7 signs used to mention licensed carriers?
 
Good news. I assume that this means that the absence of the LTC will require all transactions will need to be called into NICS?
 
Can you still get an LTC for that purpose and reciprocity? I still have mine as an out of state resident.
 
Everything that I've read colloquially implies that the LTC won't go away so it will still have reciprocity utility in other states, but I'm stumped as to how NICS checks are impacted.
 
GEM said:
What's the signage rules for businesses now? Any change? Been awhile but the 30.06/7 signs used to mention licensed carriers?
Click to expand...
I would imagine the signage would have to change to include unlicensed carriers in the businesses & venues that want to be posted.
 
From the comparison published on Wednesday, signage applies still for "preventing" carry.
(Recall there's no exception under 30.06 or 30.07 for licensed carry within user-prohibited locations)

LTC will remain, remains $30 (as far as I can tell), and is largely for out-of-state reciprocity. Also, LTC still makes NICS check redundant

Also the current version also removes the shoulder holster or belt holster language from the "open carry" portions of the law. This will moot the separate bill already out of conference to explicitly deal with this.

The RFL, No private Transfers, required liability, requirement to declare, and required safe storage "poison pills" introduced in the Senate have all been excised.

Most of the debate in the senate was over the language about open carry in vehicles. Which may be clarified to mean you no longer have to conceal a firearm carried in your vehicle (only those carried on public carriers--bus, taxi, uber, etc.--where permitted by that carrier).
 
I'm remaining skeptical. HB1927 with amendments still needs to pass both Houses of Congress and the Gov still needs to sign it. I'm hopeful.
 
CapnMac said:
From the comparison published on Wednesday, signage applies still for "preventing" carry.
(Recall there's no exception under 30.06 or 30.07 for licensed carry within user-prohibited locations)

LTC will remain, remains $30 (as far as I can tell), and is largely for out-of-state reciprocity. Also, LTC still makes NICS check redundant

Also the current version also removes the shoulder holster or belt holster language from the "open carry" portions of the law. This will moot the separate bill already out of conference to explicitly deal with this.

The RFL, No private Transfers, required liability, requirement to declare, and required safe storage "poison pills" introduced in the Senate have all been excised.

Most of the debate in the senate was over the language about open carry in vehicles. Which may be clarified to mean you no longer have to conceal a firearm carried in your vehicle (only those carried on public carriers--bus, taxi, uber, etc.--where permitted by that carrier).
Click to expand...

Link, please?
 
CapnMac said:
From the comparison published on Wednesday, signage applies still for "preventing" carry.
(Recall there's no exception under 30.06 or 30.07 for licensed carry within user-prohibited locations)

LTC will remain, remains $30 (as far as I can tell), and is largely for out-of-state reciprocity. Also, LTC still makes NICS check redundant

Also the current version also removes the shoulder holster or belt holster language from the "open carry" portions of the law. This will moot the separate bill already out of conference to explicitly deal with this.

The RFL, No private Transfers, required liability, requirement to declare, and required safe storage "poison pills" introduced in the Senate have all been excised.

Most of the debate in the senate was over the language about open carry in vehicles. Which may be clarified to mean you no longer have to conceal a firearm carried in your vehicle (only those carried on public carriers--bus, taxi, uber, etc.--where permitted by that carrier).
Click to expand...

This looks decently-done. I hope that the final steps, in the sausage factory, remain this promising. (Sometimes, things get messed-up when translating a signed bill into its final wording in the Penal Code.)
 
billtool said:
I'm remaining skeptical. HB1927 with amendments still needs to pass both Houses of Congress and the Gov still needs to sign it. I'm hopeful.
Click to expand...

It should not need to go before both houses of the legislature again. That is what the conference committee is supposed to hash-out. There remains the governor’s signature, of course, and then getting the wording correct, in the finalized form of the Penal Code. This last step is often over-looked, but, yes, it can have a major unintended-consequence effect. An example would be the session, some years ago, that reformed sex crimes in a major way, and in the final printed form, the Penal Code appeared to outlaw all sexual activity, by all persons. It was not fixed until the next legislative session. LEOs, all over Texas, had to be trained and advised to ignore one particular phrase, in the Penal Code, for 2+ years. (No, I cannot cite chapter and section, but I was one of those peace officers, who received the advisement.)
 
danez71 said:
Link, please?
Click to expand...
From: https://texas.gunowners.org/goa-texas-bullet-5-17-2021/ (GOA Texas)
And examining this link: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/senateamendana/pdf/HB01927A.pdf#navpanes=0 --which is quite literally "the house's mouth."

Hard to snip that doc, for being long, but one of the few points of contention is:
Sec 411.02097. FIREARM SAFETY. The department shall develop and post on the department's Internet website a course on firearm safety and handling. The course must be accessible to the public free of charge. [FA14(2)
Click to expand...
which was not in HB 1927 (there were/are some details on requiring DPS to document "gun violence" to an online site).
 
I do see one unintended negative consequence. The new 30.05 signage, described in HB 1927, specifies the wording “firearms,” whereas the currently-effective 30.06 and 30.07 signage applies to the carry of handguns, by those licensed to carry handguns. LONG GUNS presently fly UNDER this “RADAR.” So, if I am reading this correctly, there may be signs popping up at places where long gun carry is, at present, not prohibited. Texas law has been long-gun-friendly for a very long time, and, it appears, long gun freedom is taking a step backward. Hopefully, very few places will be posting this new HB 1927-compatible signage!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

WestKentucky
  • Locked
Constitutional Carry changes
Replies
3
Views
413
GEM
G
M
  • Locked
Texas Considers allowing open carry of handguns-news report
Replies
21
Views
1K
USAF_Vet
U
C
  • Locked
Texas Open Carry law
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
richyoung
R
The_Shootist
  • Locked
Tx Hunts Hogs From Air (Again)
Replies
8
Views
479
The_Shootist
The_Shootist
T
  • Locked
Petition For Open Carry In Texas
Replies
16
Views
646
frankie_the_yankee
F
Back
Top