Texas Gun Legislation - 2013 (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 11/26/2012 9:49:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MateFrio][Edited]
|
I just wanted an easy thread where we can track gun legislation, pro or against, 2013 Texas State bills. Here is the one I did last session:::http://3gn.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=8&t=445268 Please post actual bills and news on the bills as response. I'll do my best to keep up with ones this term. If we can keep this thread clean of comments and just news\progress of these bills it'll be a great resource. If you want to comment YOUR OPINION of a bill please start a new thread or search for an existing thread :: i.e. Texas Gun Legislation - 2013 HB 47 proficiency course comments here. House HB 47 Relating to a handgun proficiency course that is taken to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license. 10 to 4 hrs HB 48 Relating to the procedure under which a person may renew a license to carry a concealed handgun. HB 153 Relating to the definition of intoxicated for purposes of certain weapons offenses. HB 158 Relating to the designation on a person's driver's license or commercial driver's license that the person is licensed to carry a concealed handgun. HB 223 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns by certain persons attending a school board meeting. HB 312 Relating to information contained on a personal identification certificate, driver's license, and commercial driver's license. HB 333 Relating to requiring notice of a hotel's firearms policy; providing a civil penalty. HB 383 Relating to the recognition and validity of a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state. HB 485 Relating to the amount of the fee paid by certain peace officers and veterans of the United States armed forces for a license to carry a concealed handgun. HB 507 Relating to the discharge of a firearm across the property line of an educational facility; providing criminal penalties. HB 508 Relating to certain laws relating to carrying concealed handguns on property owned or leased by a governmental entity; creating an offense. HB 553 Relating to firearms and the preservation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; providing penalties. HB 572 Relating to the issuance to veterans of specially marked licenses to carry a concealed handgun and specially marked personal identification certificates. (See SB 164) HB 627 Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation. HB 663 Relating to the expiration dates of concealed handgun licenses for certain members of the United States armed forces. HB 698 Relating to the use of digital or electronic fingerprinting for an application for a license to carry a concealed handgun. (exempt from electronic if facility is 25 miles or more from home) HB 700 Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties. HB 706 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on certain premises of or locations associated with schools or institutions of higher education. (Campus Carry) HB 801 Relating to the discharge of a firearm across the property line of a school; providing criminal penalties. HB 872 Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation. HB 928 Relating to the enforcement of certain federal laws regulating firearms, firearm accessories, and firearm ammunition within the State of Texas. HB 972 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education.(Campus Carry) HB 1030 Relating to the authority of a political subdivision to prohibit the sale of firearms on public property in certain circumstances. HB 1049 Relating to the enforcement of certain federal laws regulating firearms, firearm accessories, and firearm ammunition within the State of Texas. HB 1051 Relating to the application of certain concealed handgun license laws to United States attorneys and assistant United States attorneys and to the authority of those attorneys to carry certain weapons. HB 1076 Relating to certain firearms, firearm accessories and firearm ammunition within the State of Texas; providing an exemption from federal regulation and providing penalties. HB 1077 Relating to the transportation and storage of firearms and ammunition in private vehicles on the campuses of institutions of higher education. HB 1078 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on certain premises of or locations associated with institutions of higher education. HB 1142 Relating to a public school elective course on firearm safety, training, and history. HB 1194 Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties. HB 1298 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns by certain license holders on certain locations associated with a public or private school or educational institution. (Campus Carry) HB 1299 Relating to municipal regulation of electric stun guns, knives, and personal defense sprays. HB 1304 Relating to the intentional display of a handgun. HB 1313 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on certain premises of or locations associated with schools or institutions of higher education. HB 1314 Relating to the unlawful seizure of a firearm by a governmental officer or employee; providing penalties. HB 1349 Relating to information that may be requested by the Department of Public Safety from a person applying for or renewing a concealed handgun license. HB 1531 Relating to the application of certain weapons laws to certain emergency services personnel licensed to carry a concealed handgun. HB 1533 Relating to an exemption from the sales tax for firearms and hunting supplies for a limited period. HB 1747 Relating to a packaging notice for new firearms and firearm ammunition; imposing a criminal penalty. HB 1862 Relating to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with respect to a switchblade knife. HB 1872 Relating to federal firearm reporting for a person who voluntarily identifies as a person with mental illness. HB 1896 Relating to firearm training and the authority of certain employees of a school district or open-enrollment charter school to carry or possess a handgun on certain school premises; authorizing a fee. Senate SB 164 Relating to the issuance to veterans of specially marked licenses to carry a concealed handgun and specially marked personal identification certificates. (See HB 572) SB 182 Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education. (Campus Carry) SB 231 Relating to the applicability of certain concealed handgun laws to certain associate judges. SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. SB 343 Relating to the disposition of certain seized weapons. SB 481 Relating to the recognition and validity of a license to carry a concealed handgun issued by another state. SB 707 Relating to the definition of intoxicated for purposes of certain weapons offenses. SB 858 Relating to the number of classroom hours required in a handgun proficiency course that is taken to obtain a concealed handgun license. SB 864 Relating to a handgun proficiency course that is taken to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license. HCR HCR 28 Designating October 2 as "Come and Take It" Day for a 10-year period beginning in 2013. |
|
So for HB 153
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTIONA1. Section 46.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivision (18) to read as follows: (18) "Intoxicated" has the meaning assigned by Section 49.01. Section 49.01 (2) "Intoxicated" means: (A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. |
De Operis Liber + Si Odi Crustum Digni Morir
Joined:
Nov 2009
Posts:
15682
EE: 100% (1)
TX, USA
De Operis Liber + Si Odi Crustum Digni Morir
Joined:
Nov 2009
Posts:
16034
EE: 100% (1)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigcountry:
Has anyone said anything about open carry on campus concealed carry? I would like Open Carry as well as the campus carry. We can hope |
Stoning kids with Emo haircuts is the foundation of Jeffersonian Democracy.
-Cincinnatus
I've been all over the US, nobody has ever felt my balls......".
-Bohr_Adam
Proud Member Team Ranstad
-Cincinnatus
I've been all over the US, nobody has ever felt my balls......".
-Bohr_Adam
Proud Member Team Ranstad
| I actually hope that the hotel bill gets no publicity and goes nowhere. I have yet to see a legal sign at a hotel. I know there are some but there will be more after this. |
RIP John Noveske. You'll be remembered as the great man that you were.
I have an obsession with top quality firearms.
I have an obsession with top quality firearms.
|
So far we have had no:
1) open carry 2) removal of public gun free zones 3) campus carry 4) a bill like Wyoming which increases states rights Wtf is wrong with our state? We should be leading the nation in this. Oh, and number 5) 75% tax break on on gun manufacturing 
|
| If you want campus carry and/or open carry, then call or visit your state representatives and senators. I've already done it and received positive feedback on both by their staff. |
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"A Democracy will vote away its rights."
- Benjamin Franklin
"A Democracy will vote away its rights."
- Benjamin Franklin
|
http://kfyo.com/state-representative-steve-toth-discusses-firearms-protection-act-in-texas-audio/
This guy needs our support. |
"Rome's glory by way of the Greeks came,
America's by cutting the English cord,
But Texas was sired by Fighters,
And a nation was born of the Sword"
Anonymous 1836
America's by cutting the English cord,
But Texas was sired by Fighters,
And a nation was born of the Sword"
Anonymous 1836
|
Texas Legislative Bill - Support of 2A:
HB553 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00553I.pdf#navpanes= |
|
Originally Posted By Punctual: Texas Legislative Bill - Support of 2A: HB553 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB00553I.pdf#navpanes= AMEN! |
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - - - Go Navy! Go Seabees! - - - Life Member TSRA & NRA - - - TEXAS INFIDEL
|
SB182
Campus carry. : Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education. |
Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here!
Hindut Obama
Hindut Obama
|
Originally Posted By pumbaajk:
So far we have had no: 1) open carry 2) removal of public gun free zones 3) campus carry 4) a bill like Wyoming which increases states rights Wtf is wrong with our state? We should be leading the nation in this. Oh, and number 5) 75% tax break on on gun manufacturing If I'm following correctly at least. |
|
Originally Posted By snowcrab: Open carry is still in draft mode. Not submitted yet. Originally Posted By pumbaajk: So far we have had no: 1) open carry 2) removal of public gun free zones 3) campus carry 4) a bill like Wyoming which increases states rights Wtf is wrong with our state? We should be leading the nation in this. Oh, and number 5) 75% tax break on on gun manufacturing If I'm following correctly at least. |
Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here!
Hindut Obama
Hindut Obama
|
Originally Posted By soowah:
Originally Posted By snowcrab:
Open carry is still in draft mode. Not submitted yet.
Originally Posted By pumbaajk:
So far we have had no: 1) open carry 2) removal of public gun free zones 3) campus carry 4) a bill like Wyoming which increases states rights Wtf is wrong with our state? We should be leading the nation in this. Oh, and number 5) 75% tax break on on gun manufacturing If I'm following correctly at least. Last time open carry came up, NRA did not get behind it as it wasn't high enough up on their priority list. In this month's American Rifleman magazine, the article outlining NRA focus: "In Mississippi and Texas we will seek to pass laws allowing for the open carry of firearms, a right enjoyed by millions in other states". Irregardless of individual opinion of open-carry, I suspect a bill is forthcoming with more attention and push from NRA (a strong factor in passage). IMHO - I'm in favor of open-carry as another option. Only downside would be an increase in establishments legally banning firearms (30.06 postings). |
|
Originally Posted By RCK1999:
Originally Posted By soowah:
Originally Posted By snowcrab:
Open carry is still in draft mode. Not submitted yet.
Originally Posted By pumbaajk:
So far we have had no: 1) open carry 2) removal of public gun free zones 3) campus carry 4) a bill like Wyoming which increases states rights Wtf is wrong with our state? We should be leading the nation in this. Oh, and number 5) 75% tax break on on gun manufacturing If I'm following correctly at least. Last time open carry came up, NRA did not get behind it as it wasn't high enough up on their priority list. In this month's American Rifleman magazine, the article outlining NRA focus: "In Mississippi and Texas we will seek to pass laws allowing for the open carry of firearms, a right enjoyed by millions in other states". Irregardless of individual opinion of open-carry, I suspect a bill is forthcoming with more attention and push from NRA (a strong factor in passage). IMHO - I'm in favor of open-carry as another option. Only downside would be an increase in establishments legally banning firearms (30.06 postings). Same here- I want the restriction gone but I personally think OC only invites more trouble than what it is worth today's society. |
"Rome's glory by way of the Greeks came,
America's by cutting the English cord,
But Texas was sired by Fighters,
And a nation was born of the Sword"
Anonymous 1836
America's by cutting the English cord,
But Texas was sired by Fighters,
And a nation was born of the Sword"
Anonymous 1836
|
I just read HB553, and the bold parts below concerns me:
SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 46.16 to read as follows: Sec. 46.16. Second Amendment Shall Remain Inviolate; Offences; Penalties. ..................... (b) A person who is a public servant commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore. (2) "Public servant," includes an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; a branch, department, or agency of the United States; (NFA is a branch of the ATF which is a department of the United States) another person acting under a contract with a branch, department, or agency of the United States to provide a law enforcement or security service; or any other person acting under color of federal law. These parts directly conflict with the NFA. The NFA currently registers the required weapons (SBR, AOW, Machine Gun, Supressor, etc), and mandates a $200 tax on them. These two laws can not live together side by side peacefully...one will inevitably nullify the other. |
|
Any idea what Rep. Lavender means by "dual points of resistance?"
(8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster with at least dual points of resistance that is wholly or partially visible. |
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
"A Democracy will vote away its rights."
- Benjamin Franklin
"A Democracy will vote away its rights."
- Benjamin Franklin
|
Originally Posted By yugosksfan:
Any idea what Rep. Lavender means by "dual points of resistance?" (8) "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded
handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster with at least dual points of resistance that is wholly or partially visible. Level 2 holster. Just as a thumb snap and cant or twist of the gun to release |
|
Originally Posted By dyezak:
I just read HB553, and the bold parts below concerns me: SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 46.16 to read as follows: Sec. 46.16. Second Amendment Shall Remain Inviolate; Offences; Penalties. ..................... (b) A person who is a public servant commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore. (2) "Public servant," includes an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; a branch, department, or agency of the United States; (NFA is a branch of the ATF which is a department of the United States) another person acting under a contract with a branch, department, or agency of the United States to provide a law enforcement or security service; or any other person acting under color of federal law. These parts directly conflict with the NFA. The NFA currently registers the required weapons (SBR, AOW, Machine Gun, Supressor, etc), and mandates a $200 tax on them. These two laws can not live together side by side peacefully...one will inevitably nullify the other. It simply means Texas will arrest feds who try to enforce the NFA here |
|
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By dyezak:
I just read HB553, and the bold parts below concerns me: SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 46.16 to read as follows: Sec. 46.16. Second Amendment Shall Remain Inviolate; Offences; Penalties. ..................... (b) A person who is a public servant commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore. (2) "Public servant," includes an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; a branch, department, or agency of the United States; (NFA is a branch of the ATF which is a department of the United States) another person acting under a contract with a branch, department, or agency of the United States to provide a law enforcement or security service; or any other person acting under color of federal law. These parts directly conflict with the NFA. The NFA currently registers the required weapons (SBR, AOW, Machine Gun, Supressor, etc), and mandates a $200 tax on them. These two laws can not live together side by side peacefully...one will inevitably nullify the other. It simply means Texas will arrest feds who try to enforce the NFA here Nope. Part of the NFA's job is to check local laws and make sure you are allowed to own a MG/SBR/AOW/etc in the state you are from. They would see this law and wouldn't approve the stamp because approval of the stamp would cause them to break the law. This law would effectively stop all NFA transfers for anyone from Texas. Poorly written law, I'll be contacting the state capitol and talking to a few reps tomorrow. |
|
Originally Posted By dyezak:
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By dyezak:
I just read HB553, and the bold parts below concerns me: SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 46.16 to read as follows: Sec. 46.16. Second Amendment Shall Remain Inviolate; Offences; Penalties. ..................... (b) A person who is a public servant commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore. (2) "Public servant," includes an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; a branch, department, or agency of the United States; (NFA is a branch of the ATF which is a department of the United States) another person acting under a contract with a branch, department, or agency of the United States to provide a law enforcement or security service; or any other person acting under color of federal law. These parts directly conflict with the NFA. The NFA currently registers the required weapons (SBR, AOW, Machine Gun, Supressor, etc), and mandates a $200 tax on them. These two laws can not live together side by side peacefully...one will inevitably nullify the other. It simply means Texas will arrest feds who try to enforce the NFA here Nope. Part of the NFA's job is to check local laws and make sure you are allowed to own a MG/SBR/AOW/etc in the state you are from. They would see this law and wouldn't approve the stamp because approval of the stamp would cause them to break the law. This law would effectively stop all NFA transfers for anyone from Texas. Poorly written law, I'll be contacting the state capitol and talking to a few reps tomorrow. Ahh, no. First, there is no agency "NFA". The NFA stands for the national Firearms act, and this would not change anything regarding that. |
|
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. TS Ok, so I'm a little confused about this one. Can someone elaborate on the intent of the strikeouts? Am I misreading the content? It appears to read as section (a) sounds like it's saying a valid license holder does not commit a prosecutable offense if an unintentional display occurs (ie..printing, firearm becomes un-holstered/unsecured, etc.), as long as the display was not intended to cause alarm or falls under the "justified use of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9". but The strikeout in section (h) looks like it's implying a license holder can be prosecuted for displaying "the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under chapter 9". So, if you're observed with an accidental print /obvious unintentional carry display you cannot be prosecuted, but if you do display "the handgun" in a manner to cause alarm or use "the handgun" under justified deadly force circumstances you can be prosecuted? Is that correct? |
|
Originally Posted By 00Ghost00:
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. TS Ok, so I'm a little confused about this one. Can someone elaborate on the intent of the strikeouts? Am I misreading the content? It appears to read as section (a) sounds like it's saying a valid license holder does not commit a prosecutable offense if an unintentional display occurs (ie..printing, firearm becomes un-holstered/unsecured, etc.), as long as the display was not intended to cause alarm or falls under the "justified use of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9". but The strikeout in section (h) looks like it's implying a license holder can be prosecuted for displaying "the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under chapter 9". So, if you're observed with an accidental print /obvious unintentional carry display you cannot be prosecuted, but if you do display "the handgun" in a manner to cause alarm or use "the handgun" under justified deadly force circumstances you can be prosecuted? Is that correct? No. The strikeout is the old language that is in there now, that the new language will eliminate. |
|
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
No. The strikeout is the old language that is in there now, that the new language will eliminate. Only if it gets a companion bill in the house and passes. If we could get open carry and this passed, any inadvertent display wouldn't end up in a big headache. TS |
|
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
I have no idea what that is suposed to mean. ??? Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
No. The strikeout is the old language that is in there now, that the new language will eliminate. Only if it gets a companion bill in the house and passes. If we could get open carry and this passed, any inadvertent display wouldn't end up in a big headache.
Inadvertent displays are not a problam right now, today.
TS |
|
Originally Posted By txinvestigator: Originally Posted By TigerStripe: I have no idea what that is suposed to mean. ??? Originally Posted By txinvestigator: No. The strikeout is the old language that is in there now, that the new language will eliminate. Only if it gets a companion bill in the house and passes. If we could get open carry and this passed, any inadvertent display wouldn't end up in a big headache. Inadvertent displays are not a problam right now, today.TS Bills need to be passed in the House and Senate. Companion bills put one bill in each that are very close to the same and put them in parallel processes that can streamline the time it takes to pass them. Not 100% necessary but it gets the two houses working towards the same goal sooner. |
|
Originally Posted By MateFrio:
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
I have no idea what that is suposed to mean. ??? Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
No. The strikeout is the old language that is in there now, that the new language will eliminate. Only if it gets a companion bill in the house and passes. If we could get open carry and this passed, any inadvertent display wouldn't end up in a big headache.
Inadvertent displays are not a problam right now, today.
TS Bills need to be passed in the House and Senate. Companion bills put one bill in each that are very close to the same and put them in parallel processes that can streamline the time it takes to pass them. Not 100% necessary but it gets the two houses working towards the same goal sooner. Yeah, knew that. Thought you were headed somewhere else. ;) |
|
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. TS I read this as creating open carry for CHL holders. You commit an offense if you carry a handgun on or about your person and you display it in a manner calculated to cause alarm, unless you are defending yourself under the law. |
|
Originally Posted By copper_head:
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. TS I read this as creating open carry for CHL holders. You commit an offense if you carry a handgun on or about your person and you display it in a manner calculated to cause alarm, unless you are defending yourself under the law. It could be read that way but I doubt that the average DPS trooper (or average citizen) would read it that way. I say that because I have had my weapon removed and unloaded every time I have been stopped by the DPS. There is a myth that printing equals open carry and that can lead to headaches. This and complete open carry could help relieve these possible headaches. TS * I'm am not bashing DPS/LE. |
|
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
It could be read that way but I doubt that the average DPS trooper (or average citizen) would read it that way. I say that because I have had my weapon removed and unloaded every time I have been stopped by the DPS. There is a myth that printing equals open carry and that can lead to headaches. This and complete open carry could help relieve these possible headaches. TS * I'm am not bashing DPS/LE. Interesting, in 17+ years of carry in Texas I have never had my weapon unloaded and ONLY once was it moved from one side of the tailgate of my truck to the other by the Game Warden (it was in a bag). DPS has never cared and every time they were given my license they handed it right back to me. No single Texas LEO has ever asked to see my carry weapon. I have been cited for speeding only twice in that 17+ years but stopped for other things, five over (warning), headlight, U-turn too close to an intersection etc. I seem to remember an interview with the author of this bill and open carry was the intent. Maybe I have my interviews confused. |
|
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
Originally Posted By copper_head:
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. TS I read this as creating open carry for CHL holders. You commit an offense if you carry a handgun on or about your person and you display it in a manner calculated to cause alarm, unless you are defending yourself under the law. It could be read that way but I doubt that the average DPS trooper (or average citizen) would read it that way. I say that because I have had my weapon removed and unloaded every time I have been stopped by the DPS. There is a myth that printing equals open carry and that can lead to headaches. This and complete open carry could help relieve these possible headaches. TS * I'm am not bashing DPS/LE. Wow, I find this interesting as well. Over the years, and the several times I have been pulled over, I have never had my firearm removed. In fact, the usual response is either total disinterest or a noticeable 'lowering the readiness level' a notch or two. I had one State Trooper tell me that they realize if you have a CHL, you're probably not someone they are concerned about. |
O'er the land of the free & the home of the brave!
Joined:
Jan 2001
Posts:
20392
EE: 100% (85)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By arres:
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
Originally Posted By copper_head:
Originally Posted By TigerStripe:
SB 299 Relating to the unintentional display of a weapon by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. TS I read this as creating open carry for CHL holders. You commit an offense if you carry a handgun on or about your person and you display it in a manner calculated to cause alarm, unless you are defending yourself under the law. It could be read that way but I doubt that the average DPS trooper (or average citizen) would read it that way. I say that because I have had my weapon removed and unloaded every time I have been stopped by the DPS. There is a myth that printing equals open carry and that can lead to headaches. This and complete open carry could help relieve these possible headaches. TS * I'm am not bashing DPS/LE. Wow, I find this interesting as well. Over the years, and the several times I have been pulled over, I have never had my firearm removed. In fact, the usual response is either total disinterest or a noticeable 'lowering the readiness level' a notch or two. I had one State Trooper tell me that they realize if you have a CHL, you're probably not someone they are concerned about. Of the times I have been stopped ( I admit it is less now than when I was a teen/young adult! ) I have only been asked for my gun on one occasion. It was a DPS officer that did it. I handed it to him and he laid it on the toolbox until he finished calling it. He let me go with just a warning...I had been speeding at IIRC 8 mph over in a 60. BigDozer66 |
"...One Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
“War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice.” Alexa
“War, like most other things, is a science to be acquired and perfected by diligence, by perseverance, by time, and by practice.” Alexa
|
Originally Posted By BigDozer66:
Of the times I have been stopped ( I admit it is less now than when I was a teen/young adult! ) I have only been asked for my gun on one occasion. It was a DPS officer that did it. I handed it to him and he laid it on the toolbox until he finished calling it. He let me go with just a warning...I had been speeding at IIRC 8 mph over in a 60. BigDozer66 It's been a while (several years) since I've been stopped. I only got warnings on those occasions. I just want to remove as much possibility for headaches for anyone, as I think we all are. TS |
| I just got an email from TSRA saying the campus carry and open carry bills are being heard in committee earlier this year than during the last session. Let's hope they make it to the floor this time. |
If you don't have the guts to fight them in court you won't have the guts to fight them in combat.
KF5GNW Radio Free LIberty
KF5GNW Radio Free LIberty
|
The Texas Firearms Coalition has a sign up page where you can get email alerts when it is helpful to contact state reps or senators about bills on the move. Sign up is free, just need an email. They also have a bill status page here https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/index.php/bill-status-report
|
|
Check out bill HB 3218- carry anywhere LEOs can carry :)
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB3218 |
|
Originally Posted By ARTX:
Check out bill HB 3218- carry anywhere LEOs can carry :) http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB3218 Boy, I like that. |
|
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By ARTX:
Check out bill HB 3218- carry anywhere LEOs can carry :) http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB3218 Boy, I like that. So do I. |
Towely: My gf used to spit it into Coke bottles by the side of the bed. They would fill up a fair bit before she disposed of them... She's not crazy.
Texas Gun Legislation - 2013 (Page 1 of 3)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter