open-ish carry bill introduced in TX

open-ish carry bill introduced in TX

This is a discussion on open-ish carry bill introduced in TX within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Texas Legislature Online - 82(R) Text for HB 2756 Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are repealed.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 ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: open-ish carry bill introduced in TX

  1. #1
    Member Array crabbys44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    236

    open-ish carry bill introduced in TX

    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    Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are repealed.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.
    Courage is endurance for one moment more…

    Hollowpoints might expand, but bullets won't shrink.

    Μολών Λαβέ


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    That would allow display of a handgun if the carrier is justified in using deadly force. What is written here has nothing to do with open carry.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

  3. #3
    Member Array crabbys44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Agave View Post
    That would allow display of a handgun if the carrier is justified in using deadly force. What is written here has nothing to do with open carry.
    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.
    Courage is endurance for one moment more…

    Hollowpoints might expand, but bullets won't shrink.

    Μολών Λαβέ

  4. #4
    Member Array ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Wa
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Agave View Post
    That would allow display of a handgun if the carrier is justified in using deadly force. What is written here has nothing to do with open carry.
    The proposed legislation is to REPEAL those sections that were posted.

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    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. #6
    Distinguished Member Array C9H13NO3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,513
    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.
    -Ryan

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

  7. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by C9H13NO3 View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #8
    Distinguished Member Array Agave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    The proposed legislation is to REPEAL those sections that were posted.
    I stand corrected.
    The preceding post may contain sarcasm; it's just better that way. However, it is still intended with construction and with the Love of my L-rd Y'shua.

    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Tennessee Certified Instructor

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array Grant48's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    651
    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. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant48 View Post
    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. #11
    Senior Member Array Grant48's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    651
    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%.

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    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".
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #13
    Member Array ak56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Carnation, Wa
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant48 View Post
    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
    pettusmike likes this.

  14. #14
    Member Array KimberUltra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    68
    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.
    pettusmike likes this.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    Quote Originally Posted by ak56 View Post
    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.



    Lone Star Citizens Defense League
    I think part of the problem some folks are having with this the way it is written is that by taking "concealed" off the license it could cause issues with reciprocity. While LEO's in Texas should be expected to fully understand what the license covers, we can not make that assumption for other states. Should we expect a LEO in some other state we have reciprocity with to know that our "handgun license" allows us to carry as opposed to simply being something like an IL FOID card?
    This would also require a review and possible rewrite of all existing reciprocity agreements. If you get stopped by an anti-gun LEO in a state where the reciprocity agreement specifies a "Texas concealed handgun license" and you have a newly issued "Texas handgun license" how do you think that would play out?

    If they don't have time to tweek it a bit before the session ends I would be ok with it passing as is. But I would prefer they get it right now, as opposed to having come back and clean it up next session.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2011 texas open carry
,
hb 2756 texas
,
open carry in texas 2011
,
open carry texas 2011
,
texas hb 2756
,
texas open carry
,
texas open carry 2011
,
texas open carry bill
,

texas open carry bill 2011

,
texas open carry law 2011
,
texas open carry legislation
,
texas open carry legislation 2011
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors