83(R) HB 700 - Open Carry Bill

[London]

I dunno... depending on how it was written out, your pants might count as a holster. We won't have the text for a few days.

Hmmm... trying to figure out how to spell a Mariachi laugh so people will understand it when they read it....

 

[matefrio]

Back doors it seems they have the votes for Campus Carry. Open carry is being championed by the NRA and TSRA this go around and this bill HB700 is the one they are pushing.

 

[TheDan]

This counts as a holster, right?

 

[UncleSamsMisguidedChild]

This counts as a holster, right?

I think the string's optional

 

[RCK1999]

Crap!!!! The level II requirement was going to be my excuse to buy another pistol that would have a variety of holster options. Now I'm going to have to come up with another excuse

 

[matefrio]

 

[MPA1988]

Not a fan of open carry primarily due to tactical advantage. However, it would be nice to not have to worry about concealment while in my vehicle.

 

[jordanmills]

Not a fan of open carry primarily due to tactical advantage. However, it would be nice to not have to worry about concealment while in my vehicle.

I wouldn't do it often, but I don't think it's my business to tell someone else how to exercise their protected rights.

 

[London]

Open carry is the only practical way to go when hiking (especially with a backpack). Just because the advantages are few doesn't mean they should be overlooked or discounted.

 

[UncleSamsMisguidedChild]

Open carry is the only practical way to go when hiking (especially with a backpack). Just because the advantages are few doesn't mean they should be overlooked or discounted.

OMG I agree w/ London on something!

 

[TheDan]

I like your purple coat...

 

[TxDad]

So I guess they are discussing it at this moment????

 

[London]

OMG I agree w/ London on something!

Congratulations on starting your trek toward enlightenment.

 

[ATX_Shawn]

Congratulations on starting your trek toward enlightenment.

lol

 

[TxDad]

What exactly does "left pending in committee" mean?


~Sent from space~

 

[jblosser]

HB 700 received a pretty good hearing. HB 1194 was postponed because the author was preparing a substitute of some kind. However, Lavender presented a substitute for 700 that removes the "two points of resistance" language and does not attempt to regulate the kind of holster used and also restores the original language of 30.06 with only the additional word "concealed" and adds a new 30.07 providing for a sign specifically directed at open carry. With this substitute I believe 700 is fine as the vehicle for licensed open carry (I still want constitutional carry, don't get me wrong).

The hearing came near the end of a very long day of testimony (we started at 8am, and adjourned around 8pm, with only one real recess from 10am to noon for the regular legislative session). Various blood draw and other bills went first, followed by the Campus Carry bills. There were a ton of Austin-area teachers and students there to testify against Campus Carry, with a lot more arriving near the end of that period who had clearly just gotten calls to show up and testify. Many of them had no idea which bill was which and just gave generic only-police-should-have-guns speeches. One very refreshing exception was a gentleman from Texas A&M who was there representing their student government organization and reported their entire student body was firmly in support of Campus Carry (score that one Aggies +1, Longhorns -100).

After Campus Carry the K-12 and then a couple other bills were heard. The anti testimony continued being just generic against everything. Finally when they were still talking against Campus Carry during a bill about whether or not CHL holders should be required to leave any place they are if a field trip shows up, which is the current state of the law this bill was trying to fix, Rep Sheets walked one of them through the actual language of the bill in front of them and got one to say no, they didn't think CHL holders should have to leave just because a field trip showed up, and they appeared to all leave after that.

This meant there were actually very few who spoke against when Open Carry finally came up. I got called first and testified primarily about Texas status vs the rest of the country and the fact the Texas Constitution does not really allow them to regulate the wearing of arms unless it prevents crime, which prohibiting open carry does not do, and it's therefore debatable the current law is even constitutional. I had presented the same argument in favor of Campus Carry with no real response from the committee but this time the Chair interrupted me to ask some questions about that idea and we had very good back and forth.

I was followed by many others who spoke extremely well in support, several no doubt from this board. Two particularly memorable ones were a gentleman from Texas Open Carry and a disabled former Navy Seal who indicated he'd been the one working with Rep Lavender to get this bill drafted and filed this session. There was also a gentleman who noted the ridiculousness of applying a $140 fine on everyone who wants to exercise their constitutional right and how unlikely that would be to stand up if challenged in the 5th circuit. The committee heard repeatedly and in multiple forms that they are likely to face some form of legal challenge if they don't start fixing these issues on their own.

One minor surprise was that the TSRA hung around until this bill and spoke in favor of it. Their focus has been Campus Carry, but they said as long as the substitute was adopted with the preservation of 30.06 and addition of 30.07 so we wouldn't start seeing lots of places that had allowed CHL banning it as a matter of course because they didn't like Open Carry, they were all for this bill.

The bill was left pending in committee, which is normal this early on and after the first hearing. Next step is to keep pressure on the Committee Chair to keep bringing it back up and eventually let the Committee vote on it. If 1194 is actually brought back and gets a hearing, that's likely the next chance to testify on Open Carry generically.

The full archive of the meeting (starting after the morning House session, which is where Campus Carry starts) is here: Texas House of Representatives : Video / Audio Player

 

[jblosser]

This was the essence of my prepared testimony, I ad-libbed a bit off this to respond to other comments and questions.

On Campus Carry:

My name is Jeremy Blosser and on this bill I am representing the Tarrant County Republican Party. We are in favor of all four of these bills.

Mr. Chair, Members, the Tarrant County Republican Party supports all these campus carry bills but I signed up to speak for Rep. Kleinschmidt's bill because I appreciate its simplicity. When dealing with the question of where people can and cannot carry I believe it is critical that the law be understandable and simple and avoid any potential risk of unintended consequences.

I know we have a lot of testimony on these bills so I will be brief. The one issue I did want to make sure got sufficient attention was that the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Sec 23, states that the legislature may regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

It has become painfully obvious that not allowing carry on college campuses does not prevent crime. They are not preventing blood baths or shoot outs between police and armed civilians already at the scene of a shooting—we know this because we have seen other states go this route already and none of these things have happened. Unfortunately banning this carry does quite the opposite, it invites crime. Today in Texas, if someone wants to kill a lot of people, he is not likely to return to a Luby's. He is however likely to return to the University of Texas here in Austin and climb the tower. Let's not forget, by the way, that one of the four that climbed the tower to stop Charles Whitman was a civilian using a weapon borrowed from an agent. I don't know if the officers there that day would have testified on a bill like this they did not want armed civilians present when responding to a shooting, but that day at least they were happy for all the help they could get.

If the legislature is to properly exercise its authority to regulate arms with a view to prevent crime, it has a duty to begin the elimination of gun-free zones, not to preserve them. I urge you to consider this bill favorably.

On Open Carry:

My name is Jeremy Blosser and on this bill I am representing myself. I am in favor of HB 700.

Everyone in the US and the world knows Texas. They know we are fiercely self-reliant. They know we value individual liberty and personal responsibility. They know not to mess with us. They know that if you value your freedom and your guns, you live in Texas, because we have the least restrictive gun laws in the country.

Except we don't. Our CHL program is one of the more involved ones in the country, and that CHL program came into being during the lifetime of the people in this room. On the question of open carry, we are part of a group of only 6 states and DC that do not have any form of legal open carry. It's frankly a bit embarrassing that friends of mine in New England can open carry and we can't here. We are joined on that list by New York and Illinois and Washington DC. We are not joined by California, which may or may not allow open carry in certain circumstances, no one is quite sure what their law says, but that's California.

In all seriousness, I know that some see this as just a nice to have, or a problem that doesn't need fixing, or something we'll get to one of these years when there aren't more important things.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Sec 23, states that the legislature may regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. There is no data that indicates that preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying openly prevents crime. Instead we find more crime where we do not find law-abiding citizens going armed, and therefore any law that prevents law-abiding citizens from going armed is not working toward that constitutional view, it is working against it. This is a real issue in Texas where the heat prevents many from carrying if their wardrobe for a given hot day makes concealment difficult.

Oklahoma recently adopted a law like this one, allowing CHL holders to open carry. Arizona has gone farther and allows anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it. They have not seen an increase in crime, they continue to benefit from the positive effects of law-abiding citizens freely exercising their rights to protect themselves. It is time for Texas to join them and live up to our great reputation.

 

[ATX_Shawn]

This meant there were actually very few who spoke against when Open Carry finally came up. I got called first and testified primarily about Texas status vs the rest of the country and the fact the Texas Constitution does not really allow them to regulate the wearing of arms unless it prevents crime, which prohibiting open carry does not do, and it's therefore debatable the current law is even constitutional. I had presented the same argument in favor of Campus Carry with no real response from the committee but this time the Chair interrupted me to ask some questions about that idea and we had very good back and forth.

Your da man!

Thanks for the update!

 

[jblosser]

What exactly does "left pending in committee" mean?

In short, it means they gave it a hearing to talk about it but haven't taken a vote yet on whether or not they will send it to the full House.

 

[TxDad]

In short, it means they gave it a hearing to talk about it but haven't taken a vote yet on whether or not they will send it to the full House.

Thank you J for the awesome update. On my question, is there a specific time period in which they will readdress it?


~Sent from space~