TX Constitutional carry, deal reached

Rexster said:

The new 30.05 signage

Click to expand...

There's also the 40.03 (IIRC) signage (TABC applications) that will want sorting, too.

They did tighten up the language in 30.05, 06,07, to require "deniers" to post at every entrance using the mandated 1" lettering in English & Spanish. Note that the required language is reduced to "Pursuant to Section 30. 05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm" which is a bit less verbiage than the old 30.06 & 30.07 signs.
LTC were barred the same as non-LTC, so it's really a wash.

My first reading is that the 30.06 and 30.07 signage remains valid, but applies to everyone, not just LTC holders.

It's confusing for having the additional language that applies to emergency shelters during declared emergencies. Texas law already allows carry during Declared Emergencies. What had not been clear was what happened if you were directed to a shelter, and they tossed you out for being armed under the law. If I read it right, an emergency shelter has to have 30.05 (or .06/.07) signage in place at every entrance to make a "disarmed" policy valid.

Kind of fascinating, that, as large as this is, it really does not change our lives so very much. Other than you can have a firearm open on the seat of your car.

Great, our state finally joined our neighbors.

Well, long guns have flown “under the radar” with 30.06 and 30.07 signage, but the new 30.05 signage, as it states “firearms,” will now make long guns unwelcome, and my concern is that places will tend to start posting the 30.05 signage. It is not that Texas law has been changed to directly restrict possession of long guns, but that “handgun” has been changed to “firearm” in the wording for the signage in the trespassing statute.

Some may wonder why this matters. Well, being able to discreetly tote a long gun is something I started doing as long ago as 1980, when I could not yet legally buy a handgun, and long before Texas established a handgun carry license system, which did not happen until 1995, IIRC.

This is not the first time that the Texas legislature has tried to do the right thing, but managed to let an unintended negative thing get written into a new law.

Other than you can have a firearm open on the seat of your car.

Click to expand...

Hard to think of a worse carry option -- you have to hit the brakes, then where the h*** does the gun end up?

Idiot drivers make me spill my beer all the time!


OTOH A holster fastened between the seats would work and not be concealed, but you'd have to take the gun with when you leave or get ripped off for sure, which is not the most discreet operation when exiting or entering your vehicle.

I keep a cheapie in my center console and carry another on my person, lot of potential issues with console carry too, but I don't have to handle a gun in a public setting and there is nothing visible inside my car to make it a target.

Good day for 2A today. Two bills passed both houses and on the way to Gov. Abbott for his signature.


GOA Celebrates Passage of HB 1927: Greatest TX gun rights victory since the Alamo!

Published May 24, 2021

• Share
• Tweet
• Parley
• Email

May 24, 2021
For immediate release

Texas Passes Constitutional Carry and Ends 150 Years of Gun Control Tyranny

Austin, TX – Gun Owners of America (GOA) released the following statement after the Texas Senate followed the lead of the Texas House and voted to accept the Legislative Conference Committee Report on HB 1927, otherwise known as the Firearm Carry Act of 2021, and commonly known as Constitutional Carry.

Rachel Malone, GOA’s Texas Director, stated:

“I invite all Texans to join with me in celebrating the passage of HB 1927, which repeals the general state ban on handgun carry enacted in 1871. The Legislature’s passage of this bill represents Texas’ strongest stand to protect the right to keep and bear arms since the siege of the Alamo.

“It is far past time for the state of Texas to recognize the right of law-abiding Texans to protect themselves and their families – without having to ask for permission. GOA is proud to have been a critical part of getting this important measure to Governor Abbott’s desk. We are thankful for the support and dedication of our members and the countless hours they spent at the Capitol this session. We also applaud the unending commitment of Rep. Matt Schaefer in defending the right of the people of Texas to bear arms.”

State Representative Matt Schaefer (HD6-Tyler), the bill author, stated upon the conference committee reaching an agreement:

“By working together, the House and Senate will send Gov. Abbott the strongest Second Amendment legislation in Texas history, and protect the right of law-abiding Texans to carry a handgun as they exercise their God-given right to self-defense and the defense of their families.”

State Senator Charles Schwertner (SD5-Georgetown), the bill’s Senate sponsor, stated at the same time:

“Texas has fulfilled the promise of our founding documents by finally restoring the right of law-abiding Texans to carry a handgun without a license for the defense of themselves and their loved ones.”

Since HB 1927 has been favorably voted on by both chambers, the bill now goes to Governor Abbott’s desk for signing into law. After being signed, the bill will go into effect on September 1, 2021.

GOA spokespeople are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a grassroots nonprofit dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

https://texas.gunowners.org/goa-cel...eatest-tx-gun-rights-victory-since-the-alamo/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also passed today:


HB 2622: Second Amendment Sanctuary

• Earlier today, the Senate passed the exact same version already passed by the House. The bill now goes to the Governor, who has championed this legislation. If signed, it will go into effect on September 1, 2021.
• The bill keeps Texas personnel and resources from being used to enforce Federal gun-related laws enacted after January 19, 2021 that are not in Texas law.
• If an entity or agency violates the provision and tries to help enforce future Federal gun laws, that entity will be denied state funding.
• Note: The bill is NOT designed protect against existing Federal infringements or against any state-level infringements, and it does NOT stop the Federal government from enforcing their own laws.
• See our handout.

Rexster said:

Well, long guns have flown “under the radar” with 30.06 and 30.07 signage, but the new 30.05 signage, as it states “firearms,” will now make long guns unwelcome, and my concern is that places will tend to start posting the 30.05 signage. It is not that Texas law has been changed to directly restrict possession of long guns, but that “handgun” has been changed to “firearm” in the wording for the signage in the trespassing statute.

Some may wonder why this matters. Well, being able to discreetly tote a long gun is something I started doing as long ago as 1980, when I could not yet legally buy a handgun, and long before Texas established a handgun carry license system, which did not happen until 1995, IIRC.

This is not the first time that the Texas legislature has tried to do the right thing, but managed to let an unintended negative thing get written into a new law.

Click to expand...

Well, that is something we need to press to get a fix for.

Kind of figured they would add something about being able to restrict long guns because of the few folks that thought it was a good idea to strut around Walmart with their AR dressed in camo. Last session they took the harsher penalties out of the .06 law. It use to be you lost your license if you ignored the sign. Now it's a class C or A misdemeanor in which the A can hurt a bit. Of course the TABC 51% sign is another one that has always been a tough one. I have been in what one would think is a restaurant but is actually classified as a bar because of their percentage of alcohol sales. They had their sign posted where you could only see it on the way out or high above the bar in an inconspicuous location. It was almost like they put it out of sight out of mind just because it was required.

The concerning thing in my mind is that many states constitutional carry laws are worded such that only residents of that state can legally carry. I haven’t read the Texas stuff yet but I intend to as Texas is one of my favorite vacation destinations.

• Private businesses can prohibit unlicensed carry by providing notice under Penal Code Chapter 30.05. This notice can be a specifically worded sign, somewhat similar to a 30.06 or 30.07 sign, or it can be another sign or communication that simply gives notice that entry with a handgun is forbidden. The maximum penalty is identical to the penalty for carrying past a 30.06 or 30.07 sign: maximum class C misdemeanor and $200 fine if you leave as soon as you’re told to leave. https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-final-version-what-does-it-say/

Click to expand...

I have a bit of concern about the "or it can be another sign or communication that simply gives notice that entry with a handgun is forbidden." above.

If I read this correctly, it applies only to unlicensed carry, however, the following sign may be acceptable (??) and, if so, can very well be problematic, albeit only for unlicensed carry?
htthttps://www.safetysign.com/images/source/page-list-pages/productgrid-xn-t/F7449.pngps://www.safetysign.com/images/source/page-list-pages/productgrid-xn-t/F7449.png

When LTC first became law in TX, there were no standards as to signage and the above sign was considered to be proper notice. A convenience store near my home placed a very small one (approximately 4" square) beside the entrance, but it was surrounded by many different ads, displays, etc. so as to be very inconspicuous. When I happened to notice it, I had been in violation for several months. Standardization of signage is very important IMO, especially in view of the fact that:

No “Savings Clause” included:

Click to expand...

• Carry onto prohibited places can result in a Class A misdemeanor or 3rd-degree felony.
• The House version had an exception to the penalty (“Savings Clause”): it said that if you carried into one of the above prohibited places but left as soon as you were given personal notice, you could not be penalized.
• Unfortunately, the Senate insisted on stripping out the Savings Clause (we supported the Savings Clause).
• The final language does include a defense to prosecution if you carry into one of the above prohibited places when no signage was posted informing you that carry was prohibited.
• https://texas.gunowners.org/hb-1927-final-version-what-does-it-say/

Click to expand...

The way I read the signage section, those w/CCW can ignore all but the 30-06 signs?

• Regards,
• hps

So the ghost buster signs could come back? Well, that's a breakthrough? Did the CC folks add this or did the antis sneak it in. One may recall that the 30.06s were designed to be obnoxious so we didn't see that many. Then when OC came along, people found that was more obnoxious than the signage and we got the 30.07s and some folks who added the 30.06s for a net loss of carry locations.

Do the parking lot rules stopping employers from banning lots still hold for LTC folks but not for constitutional folks?

I was just reading a story about this Texas development in Kathimerini, the leading conservative newspaper in Greece.

https://www.kathimerini.gr/world/56...polytos-adeia-enekrine-to-topiko-koinovoylio/

The story presents the facts rather fairly. But reading it in Greek, the whole thing sounds ridiculous. This just goes to show that the cultural presuppositions in (large parts of) America are totally different from those in the rest of the world.

wally said:

Hard to think of a worse carry option -

Click to expand...

Well, until September, any (legal) Texan can have a firearm in their vehicle, but it has to be "concealed." Not just in a holster, but concealed.
Which has grayed the hair of many a County Prosecutor.
And been no small amount of inquiries to the AG's office (even back to when Abbott held that post).

After September you will be able to just seatbelt your range bag to the passenger seat and not worry if the flap is close when you swing through What-a-burger. And, you don't have to worry about flashing the concealed firearm when you have to get the extra cash when you get some taquitos, too.

I read the final bill and still can’t get a solid answer to whether constitutional carry applies only to residents of Texas or to all persons whether resident or visitor.

I think I have gone cross eyed and crazy trying to decipher the legalese.

That's a good question. Way back when, San Antonio had a local ordinance against loaded long guns in the car. That was to be able to bust gang members who were buying SKSs and riding around with them. When pointed out that the local rule was not state constitutional, the SAPD spokesperson said they didn't care. That was brought to an end by the OC rifle folks. However, the cops lost a tool or so they say.

Thus, the nice folks don't have to worry about their range bag flaps but do the cops worry about not being able to stop and bust folks. Now that was used against 'nasty' folks and probably discriminatory to some decent folks. Interesting how this plays out on looking for guns.

You can arrest a felon with a gun but now if the stop is forbidden - oops on that.

GEM said:

So the ghost buster signs could come back? Well, that's a breakthrough? Did the CC folks add this or did the antis sneak it in. One may recall that the 30.06s were designed to be obnoxious so we didn't see that many. Then when OC came along, people found that was more obnoxious than the signage and we got the 30.07s and some folks who added the 30.06s for a net loss of carry locations.

Do the parking lot rules stopping employers from banning lots still hold for LTC folks but not for constitutional folks?

Click to expand...

From the Bill 30.05 language is:

"Pursuant to Section 30. 05, Penal Code (criminal trespass), a person may not enter this property with a firearm"

Click to expand...

But, in minimum one inch tall letters, in English and Spanish, and at every entrance (used to be you could designate a "most common entrance")

The AG will probably have to weigh in on whether 30.06 (concealed carry prohibited) and 30.07 (open carry prohibited) still apply, and whether that's only for those with LTC.
Language for 30.05 does appear to be "no guns, period" no matter what's in your wallet.

There is a codicil that a Property Owner, or a recognizable agent thereof, may verbally inform, but, in reading the language, unless they stand at every door and tell every person entering, then they are guilty of a violation. (The legislative text actually reads to make it illegal to post "no guns" but provides Defenses Against Prosecution if they install signage at every door and/or a person with authority (as in, not jimmy the janitor) verbally informs.)

Employer parking lots are unchanged, sadly. Which needs to be addressed in two years.

GEM said:

You can arrest a felon with a gun but now if the stop is forbidden - oops on that.

Click to expand...

The Resident versus Non-Resident will need an AG opinion, and quickly.

Actually, the prohibitions for criminals remain. Persons engaged in "gang activity" have no protection under the law. And, none of this applies to Prohibited Persons. (Which is reiterated in the text six ways to Sunday, and in tiresome detail.)

I remember the SA situation. Basically the DA said any carry of firearms inside the Loop was illegal and to seize anything found. You could get your arm back, but the going price was about $1200-1500 in legals fees in the 90s, and your could get another pistol for $400, so it was not common. But, every so often, people would go through the process, and a number of irregularities with custody of property were uncovered, so SAPD leaned on the DA to back off on the policy (the DA had higher political aspirations, anyway, and left City employ not long after). I was doing contracting work in Alamo City, and got to see this far too up close and personal. Sigh.

WestKentucky said:

The concerning thing in my mind is that many states constitutional carry laws are worded such that only residents of that state can legally carry. I haven’t read the Texas stuff yet but I intend to as Texas is one of my favorite vacation destinations.

Click to expand...

I do not remember seeing anything in HB 1927 that limited handgun carry to Texas residents. Our Penal Code rarely makes such distinctions. Notably, long gun carry, which is presently generally legal*, most places within Texas, is not limited to Texas residents. Even so, let’s see what the final wording will be, as it appears in final written form, in the Penal Code. HB 1927 is not simply going to become a stand-alone law, added to the Penal Code, but requires re-writing parts of at least two chapters, Chapter 30, and Chapter 46. Then, there will be the changes needed in the Alcoholic Beverage Code. Not all unintended consequences happen in the legislature; some happen when bureaucrats are writing the provision of a new bill into the Penal Code, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and Code of Criminal Procedure.

Generally, in Texas, if something is not specifically prohibited, it is permitted.

A disassembled or taken-down firearm is still a firearm. A stripped, bare receiver is a firearm.

ALWAYS be sure to read the NEWEST, most-CURRENT Penal Code. The current Penal Code is dated September 2019. The new one takes effect September First, 2021, and will contain the provisions of this new HB 1927.

I am not a lawyer. I did enforce Texas criminal laws, at the street patrol officer level, from 1984 to 2018, which simply means that I have some degree of familiarity with the Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and, to a much lesser degree, the Alcoholic Beverage Code. (The ABC changes so much, every two years, I never really tried to keep up with most of it.) I do not speak for my former employer

*In addition to the few specific places that Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code lists as prohibiting all firearms, one does have to pay attention to the boundaries of US/federal properties/entities, and there is that federal GFSZA, which all firearms owners should read, and consider, anywhere in the USA.

JDeere said:

Kind of figured they would add something about being able to restrict long guns because of the few folks that thought it was a good idea to strut around Walmart with their AR dressed in camo. Last session they took the harsher penalties out of the .06 law. It use to be you lost your license if you ignored the sign. Now it's a class C or A misdemeanor in which the A can hurt a bit. Of course the TABC 51% sign is another one that has always been a tough one. I have been in what one would think is a restaurant but is actually classified as a bar because of their percentage of alcohol sales. They had their sign posted where you could only see it on the way out or high above the bar in an inconspicuous location. It was almost like they put it out of sight out of mind just because it was required.

Click to expand...

It was always a class c misdemeanor for trespassing.

Because you don't know he is a felon unless you have positive ID. If you just see someone you think is sketchy, you could stop him in the past - as if you saw a gun printing, but as I read it now - you can't. That was the NYC stop and frisk procedure to get guns off the streets. They stopped thousands of folks for every felon or illegal gun they found and that was seen as discriminatory.

If this is in the final bill - as these things are written to be incomprehensible:

HOUSE VERSION SECTION 10. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows: Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun in a holster.

Click to expand...

You'd better have grounds for the stop because even if it is a bad guy, the stop is not forbidden and I'm not a lawyer but any legal actions, searches, etc. might be tossed. If you could positively ID the guy as a felon, or gang member - but if just fishing for guns - as done in the past - you can't.

GEM said:

So the ghost buster signs could come back? Well, that's a breakthrough? Did the CC folks add this or did the antis sneak it in. One may recall that the 30.06s were designed to be obnoxious so we didn't see that many. Then when OC came along, people found that was more obnoxious than the signage and we got the 30.07s and some folks who added the 30.06s for a net loss of carry locations.

Click to expand...

Many places that put up 30.07 and 30.06 signs, that never had a 30.06 before, now only have the 30.07 signs. I'd guess that so much window and wall space was lost at the front of those businesses, they decided to do something about that.

Now it would seem that all those businesses will have to do is post 30.05 signage? Which would be simpler for businesses that don't want guns on the premises.

A local restaurant owner I knew said that they were just fine with concealed carry way back when so they just put up a 30.07. They worked by having you stand in line to order and then food came out. Some folks were uncomfortable with standing in line with a dude in a Uncle Mike's crap holster. BTW, that's the kind of rig I usually saw with OC, very unimpressive.

I asked if she got feedback from the 30.07, and she said two old toots had some foot stomping initially. No one else - no discernible impact on business as they were always jammed for lunch and dinner. If they go for a total ban - I don't live there anymore. I'm curious as to how it shakes out.

GEM said:

A local restaurant owner I knew said that they were just fine with concealed carry way back when so they just put up a 30.07. They worked by having you stand in line to order and then food came out. Some folks were uncomfortable with standing in line with a dude in a Uncle Mike's crap holster. BTW, that's the kind of rig I usually saw with OC, very unimpressive.

I asked if she got feedback from the 30.07, and she said two old toots had some foot stomping initially. No one else - no discernible impact on business as they were always jammed for lunch and dinner. If they go for a total ban - I don't live there anymore. I'm curious as to how it shakes out.

Click to expand...

I never saw anyone open carry here after the law change except LEOs, whether in uniform or plain clothes.

I think the only restaurants here that would post the 30.07 would be the kind that already have a 30.07. Which would be a conservative business that balances their overall customer's desires with consideration towards licensed concealed carriers.

I imagine the new 30.05 will get plastered all over the place as a knee jerk reaction similar to when the 30.07 signage became available. Since 30.05 is only one sign, I have a feeling that those signs will impede concealed carriers for a much longer time period than the 30.06s going up then back down.

chicharrones said:

I imagine the new 30.05 will get plastered all over the place as a knee jerk reaction similar to when the 30.07 signage became available. Since 30.05 is only one sign, I have a feeling that those signs will impede concealed carriers for a much longer time period than the 30.06s going up then back down.

Click to expand...

Who knows?

3 separate signs is ridiculous though.

I realize that what would make sense to a layman is no indication of what the law actually is or what it means, that's for legal professionals and case law. But as a layman I would hope the current signage (30.06 and 30.07) would apply to those who have licenses, and the new sign (30.05) would apply to unlicensed, non-prohibited persons. And that in any combination, the least restrictive interpretation of the law would apply.

So that for example - when the new law is in effect, places which display only the current 30.06 and 30.07 signs, that licensed persons along with unlicensed, non-prohibited persons might lawfully carry within.