Defensive Carry banner

open-ish carry bill introduced in TX

7K views 37 replies 21 participants last post by  OperatorJ 
#1 ·
Texas Legislature Online - 82(R) Text for HB 2756

Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are repealed.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

What it appears to be is a piece of legislation that will allow CHL holders to carry unconcealed.

Correct me if I'm wrong please.
 
#3 ·
I didn't want to post the entire bill which is why I left the link.

What the bill would do is remove the "concealed" requirement from CHL holders.
 
#5 ·
It is rather long and seems to be intended to allow open carry. My own view is no thanks. In part, because I think there are better ways to legislate that issue than chicken scratching long established code. There is also a chance that by crossing out and deleting the references to concealed carry, the CHL could become ambiguous in meaning and interpreted as a license to only open carry, and there could be issues with other states and reciprocity.

Right intention maybe, wrong approach.
 
#6 ·
After reading through all that, I agree with Hopyard. Current legislation says we MUST stay concealed. If you strike out that part, it only says we may carry a handgun. You'd have to add another peice to say concealed is OK.
 
#7 ·
YUP. Don't mess with what works. It the legislator wants open carry by CHL holders, one or two sentences are all that is needed to achieve that goal. Define open carry. State that a CHL holder may also open carry.

Whoever proposed this is going to turn over the apple cart in error.
 
#9 ·
It seems to me that the bill's intent is not necessarily to allow open carry, although that may be the result, depending on how the courts interpret the amended statute. I believe the bill is intended to simply remove the prohibition on "printing" while carrying concealed, accidental exposure, etc.

Like others have said, the proposed language and amended structure of the statute is less than ideal, and could result in any number of unintended consequences.

If legalizing open carry by CHL holders is the intent of the bill, I would think that there would be a much clearer, less complicated way to do it.
 
#10 ·
It seems to me that the bill's intent is not necessarily to allow open carry, although that may be the result, depending on how the courts interpret the amended statute. I believe the bill is intended to simply remove the prohibition on "printing" while carrying concealed, accidental exposure, etc.
Because we have no anti-printing statute and we prohibit only 'intentional display,' it is hard to see how the author could have been intending to do anything other than allow for OC; but s/he needs to go back to HS and maybe to law school, and find a clear way to do it.

If the intent is to clear up the definition of "intentional display" then that should be directly addressed.

IMO, as proposed, this will cause lots of confusion and more harm than good.
 
#11 ·
we have no anti-printing statute
From what I've heard, when people get jammed up for printing, its under the "intentional display" clause. Then again, I have no specific instances to cite, and could possibly be simply rumor.

it is hard to see how the author could have been intending to do anything other than allow for OC
Like I said, this is only how it seems to me. I have no idea what the author's intent is. If anybody has spoken with the legislator in question, and knows for fact what supposed problem this bills seeks to remedy, that would be mighty interesting. Until then, it's all speculation.

IMO, as proposed, this will cause lots of confusion and more harm than good.
I agree 100%.
 
#13 ·
From what I've heard, when people get jammed up for printing, its under the "intentional display" clause. Then again, I have no specific instances to cite, and could possibly be simply rumor.



Like I said, this is only how it seems to me. I have no idea what the author's intent is. If anybody has spoken with the legislator in question, and knows for fact what supposed problem this bills seeks to remedy, that would be mighty interesting. Until then, it's all speculation.



I agree 100%.
My daughter and son-in-law live in Texas, and I open-carry here in Washington state, but conceal when visiting in Texas. I have been following this on other forums which include people who have worked with the legislator on this bill. The intent is definitely to allow for open carry in Texas, by removing in all places of the current laws the requirement to conceal. The current concealed handgun license would simply become a handgun license that allows carry, period. You still need to be licensed, but it is a step in the right direction.

By: Lavender H.B. No. 2756

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun.
Lone Star Citizens Defense League
 
#12 ·
After reading it I think it is a step in the right direction but could be done better. I don't mind most of the sections of code that are having "concealed" deleted from them but the problem I see is where "concealed" is deleted from "concealed handgun license".
 
#14 ·
I believe it is a good step as well. While I understand the purpose of concealing your firearm, I feel that having to hide it is and can be a little risky. In a conceal carry state, a potential bad guy isn't going to think his victim has a gun. There is no guarantee that the victim will even see an attack coming, and alot of times a bad guy isn't going to simply walk up to someone face to face, he would come from behind or the side to catch the victim by surprise.

Now in an open carry state, if a bad guy sees a gun from a distance, the chance of him even approaching is slim to none. I think this applies for women mostly, due to the fact if they are carrying it would probably be in their purse, and that would require a considerable amount of time to use the pistol to defend themselves.

Maybe my logic is flawed but any state proposing open carry I think is a good call. People who carry need to show bad people that we are standing up for ourselves, and that they need to think twice about robbing a bank, or a gas station ect. But unfortunately citizens of most states panic as soon as someone even mentions the word gun.
 
#19 ·
Never underestimate the ability of big city cops and DAs to contort the meaning of a law or just ignore the law. You will recall that several years back we had some changes to the car carry rules and Houston simply refused to acknowledge them, and the DA stated that they would continue to arrest anyone found with a gun in the car who didn't have a license. The point being that if the dang thing doesn't explicitly say "CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE" and there is any ambiguity in the law whatsoever, we all know precisely what will happen next. And then, we will have to wait for at least two years or more while things get sorted out in an appeals court or changed by a subsequent legislature--which is something that might never happen.

I'm really afraid this one is a well intentioned attempt to get OC, but a very poorly crafted way of doing it which will bring us no end of additional aggravation.

Anyway, the way our Texas legislature is going, they will probably de-fund the folks who process applications and cause a 3 year backlog.
 
#21 ·
I'm not gonna open carry,but I know a guy that in the past when sitting down in a restaurant had his gun exposed for a couple seconds,next thing he knew he was talking to cops,they told him that the management wanted him to disarm if he wanted to eat there,no 30.06 sign anywhere,he said no I'll go somewhere else.This would help people that during a moment of wardrobe failure wouldn't be on the fence as far as failing to conceal
 
#22 ·
Another thing to consider... If Open Carry is passed, would 30.06 signs become enforceable against Open Carry? If so, how will that effect the number of establishments that choose to post 30.06 signage?

If I were to guess, I'd say that if guns were more "visible", more places would be posted. As it is right now, 30.06 signage is fairly uncommon... Probably because "out of sight, out of mind".
 
#25 ·
This would in effect make licensed OC legal in Texas. Possibly the first step to allowing full OC by everyone that wishes, yet making CC require the permit still. Basically like TN has now.

Will it pass, probably not, we will have to wait and see.

These proposed changes were introduced by our state rep, he is newly elected so support for the bill may be weak, but I think it will depend on how he plays with others down in Austin.


Here are some thought from Charles L. Cotton on the matter. TexasCHLforum.com • View topic - Licensed open-carry or unlicensed open-carry?

It could possibly be a double edged sword for CHL. Currently there are only 2 or 3 places in our town that have 30.06 signs. That might change drastically.

If you don't feel that a large increase in 30.06 signs would follow passage of open-carry, why did we see an epidemic of generic "no guns" signs between 1995 when CHL first passed and Sept. 1, 1997 when the then-new TPC §30.06 went into effect making the "Big Ugly Sign" necessary to bar CHL's? Please don't try to tell me the that 2.69% of Texans with their guns hidden "taught" 97.3% of Texans anything.

It continues to amaze me how the most ardent of open-carry supporters want to point to other states while ignoring what actually happened in Texas. Experience is better than theory in predicting the future.

Chas.

[The 2.69% v. 97.3% are figures based upon population and CHL's in 2009.]
I agree that what is referred to as constitutional carry is my ultimate goal. As I have said numerous times, my only concern about open-carry is the very real possibility, if not probability, that we will see a huge increase in 30.06 signs posted simply because businesses will not risk the wrath of 97% of the population. Otherwise, I'm not against open-carry.

As you state, I believe we are making great progress toward constitutional carry. It was a huge victory to pass concealed-carry in 1995 and in almost every session since then, we've improved the law such that it furthers the rights of gun owners. In 2005, the first attempt at unlicensed car-carry was passed, but its "presumption of traveling" proved ineffective. So in 2007 we passed unlicensed car-carry and this too was a huge step toward greater recognition of the Second Amendment.

Licensed open-carry is the next logical step. CHL has been around for sixteen years and it will be eighteen years when the 2013 Texas Legislative Session begins. We have had unlicensed car-carry for almost four years now and it will be almost six years when the 2013 Texas Legislative Session begins. This will provide an excellent argument against the "parade of horribles" we'll surely hear again. We heard it when passing the original CHL, we heard it when we passed SB501 removing governmental authority to use 30.06 to bar armed CHL's, we heard it when passing unlicensed car-carry, so we know it's coming with open-carry. There are three key components in a plan to pass open-carry. First, the groundwork must be done long before the 2013 legislative session begins. Secondly, the bill must be very short to avoid unnecessarily opening up sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendments. (It can be drafted such that it is not necessary to strike the word "concealed" everywhere it appears in statute. Plus, any necessary clean-up can be done later.) The third element is dealing with the 30.06 issue effectively to protect CHL's.

After we have had licensed open-carry for a while, we can push for unlicensed open-carry once again having a good track record on which to promote a bill. At that point, we will have had licensed concealed-carry, licensed open-carry, and unlicensed car-carry. Although we will still hear the "parade of horribles" as we always do, fewer people will be concerned because of years of positive experience with people carrying self-defense handguns.

Educating the public and winning them to our side of the issues is indispensable and this is one of the three primary missions of the Texas Firearms Coalition. As soon as the legislative session is over, we are going to be doing much more with events all over the state. To answer the question I know someone is going to ask -- yes, we will be discussing open-carry in a positive light preparing the way for better public acceptance of the concept.


Chas.
 
#26 ·
Confused

Many appear (intentionally) confused about the bill. There may need to be some clarifications to the text, but basically, the existing rules of concealed carry are preserved…to add open carry. No one is exempt from acquiring a license (ie: training and background check) to qualify for the license.
Does anyone think that we should all just strap on our guns and go for it? Personally, I have many friends (even relatives) that do not possess the stability or mental attitude to carry even a big rock. Ya think they need a gun on their hip?
 
#27 ·
Many appear (intentionally) confused about the bill. There may need to be some clarifications to the text, but basically, the existing rules of concealed carry are preserved…to add open carry. No one is exempt from acquiring a license (ie: training and background check) to qualify for the license.
Does anyone think that we should all just strap on our guns and go for it? Personally, I have many friends (even relatives) that do not possess the stability or mental attitude to carry even a big rock. Ya think they need a gun on their hip?
This whole issue could be readily fixed with a very brief and straight forward few sentences. Instead, the author showed that he just had some aid chicken scratch out stuff without really thinking about meaning, or whether or not the intent will be achieved. If the legislator wants open carry, all it takes is one sentence that says holders of CHLs may open carry in all places where they may lawfully carry concealed. Then add something like, the following sections are repealed, and delete the sections which forbid OC.

I do agree though with those who say that one reason we see so few 30.06 signs is that out of sight out of mind mentality. As soon as we get OC, we'll see a lot more signs.

As for Dukalmighty's post # 21, the guy he knew wasn't arrested because there was no intentional display. The owner was within his rights however to ask him to leave. Had the friend been more careful, he would have had an uneventful dinner and no cops would have been involved in a man with a gun call. I fully agree with those who say we'll see lots of signs go up very quickly if this bill goes through.

We have a good deal here. We can carry almost anywhere. We don't need to worry about printing, and the merchants mostly don't concern themselves with us. I don't want the apple cart turned over, which it will be if we have OC.

Maybe a compromise could be had, OC could be made legal except in the large metropolitan areas. E.g., OC legal where the population of the county is less than 150K. OC won't draw a blink of attention in these more rural areas. And IMO OC in a big city is asking for big trouble.
 
#28 ·
Texas should go to Constitutional Carry.

Concealed or Open, it shouldn't matter. I have had a 180 degree turn around in my views, and think any license is a form of taxation, and an infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

Biker
 
#29 ·
Hopyard,

The problem I have with making a one sentence change in the laws and leaving "concealed" in the rest of the statutes is that would be confusing.

Get out a CHL handbook and read the prohibited places, 46.035. It still lists hospitals, amusement parks, churches, governmental meetings, as prohibited places. Then you have to read further to find out that those places actually aren't prohibited. During class this gets to be confusing for some students, they are reading their book and it says something that isn't the case.

When they amended the law, it would have been much better had they stricken those sections from the statutes. Then there would be no confusion. Those places would fall under the 30.06 if posted like anyplace else. They wouldn't have their own, these sections don't apply without effective notice under 30.06.
 
#30 ·
Hopyard,

The problem I have with making a one sentence change in the laws and leaving "concealed" in the rest of the statutes is that would be confusing.
.
And what's proposed isn't confusing?
 
#31 ·
If the statutes could be cleaned up to read handgun carry license or similar language, and remove sections that are no longer applicable that would be best. I don't see any of it happening this session though.

I don't see any "easy" solution to it actually.
 
#32 ·
I contacted Representative Lois Kolkhorst and asked her to show support for House Bill 2756. I was informed by her staff that I should have as many people as possible do the same with their representatives to raise support for this bill. During the voting process they will pull up their system which would list all the citizens showing support for this bill. This, she said, would be the largest push for legislators to vote yes. Show your support and contact your representative!


If you don't know who your rep is. This link is a search function that will tell you. Who Represents Me--Home
 
#33 ·
The committee hearing for HB 2756 went very very well. At the end, after Rep Lavender finished closing, the committee members chatted for a few minutes with Lavender. Committee member Rep Driver asked Lavender if he wanted to go into a partnership making "Bling Holsters" when this passes. Rep Beck said she was going to shop for a pretty open carry belt and holster. This will go to the floor for a vote and it will pass. Please call your reps and start to work on all of the senators as well to ask them to support this bill. If you want to be even more effective in helping, join LSCDL.

As far as the bill being confusing, it's not confusing at all. It's not really an open carry bill. It's a Texas Handgun License Modification Bill. Read the changes that the bill stipulates carefully and then you'll see that it's a big first step in aligning statutory law with Constitutional law.
 
#34 ·
Texas Legislature Online - 82(R) Text for HB 2756

Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are repealed.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.


(a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

What it appears to be is a piece of legislation that will allow CHL holders to carry unconcealed.

Correct me if I'm wrong please.
It allows you to brandish to scare away would be attacker as long as the use of deadly force was justified.
 
#35 ·
Where do you come up with that? Texas has long had laws on the books to allow you to present a deadly weapon to make an attacker back down and it is not considered deadly force. And it is not considered brandishing. Notice it says when the use of force is justified, not deadly force.

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Oh, and the bill is now dead. Texas still doesn't allow for open carry. This is something that might be worked on for the 2013 session. We will have to see if the NRA and TSRA get behind it and work it through.
 
#37 ·
You are mistaken. 46.035 has nothing to do with brandishing a gun to scare off an attacker, which if it is warranted isn't brandishing the gun in the first place. 9.04 which I posted is exactly what you're trying to get at. It says what you're looking for in black and white, you need look no further in the Texas Statutes than what I posted for scaring off an attacker.

The intentionally fails to conceal in 46.035 is if you choose to go in a public place trying to open carry, busted. If the wind blows your shirt open and someone sees your gun, that wasn't an intentional failure to conceal, you can't be sited for that, or you shouldn't be at least.

You will notice that the section in 46.035 where you quote says justified in using "deadly force under chapter 9", which is a no brainer. If you have to shoot someone you can't be sited under 46.035 for failure to conceal, dahh.
 
#38 ·
From reading the bill, it does provide for legal open carry by a CHL holder in Texas. Now, while I don't think I'm a big proponent of open carry, I do think it will be nice not to have to worry so much about printing or accidental "flashing" (mostly a concern in the summer when wearing a t-shirt and shorts).

My personal view on OC is that it removes the tactical advantage from me and gives it to the perp. If someone walks into a 7/11 and sees me OC... they then have 2 choices to make...
1- decide not to go through with the intended crime because someone is carrying a firearm (deterrence factor)
2- shoot me first to remove the threat to himself and carry thru with the crime

If I am CC, he should have no idea I am armed and therefore I have the element of surprise on my side. Now, I understand there are infinite variables in every situation that can swing the element of surprise either way... but I prefer not to have a fair fight. I like to win. Call me extremely competitive, but thats they way I like it. My wife agrees. :)

But as far as HB 2756 goes, I think it is a good step in the ability to legally carry a weapon. After all... the bad guys couldnt care less about what the law says. I am armed 99.99% of the time. There is a fine line between "paranoid" and prepared, but either way, you are protected.

just my $.02
J
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top