Posted on 05/28/2021 4:42:05 AM PDT by marktwain
On 24 May, Monday afternoon, the last significant legislative hurdle for restoring Constitutional Carry to Texas was overcome.
After years of toil, time and trouble, of betrayal and loyalty, of primaries and resignations, a significant Constitutional Carry bill has passed the Texas Legislature and is expected to be sent to Governor Abbott.
HB1927, in its final form, passed the House 82-62, and reported privately to me, passed the Senate on a straight party line vote.
Constitutional carry is a reasonable facsimile of the state of law about the carry of weapons when the Second Amendment was ratified, in 1791. At the time, no government permits were required to carry weapons, openly or concealed, by any State or the Federal government. That situation remained the state of law for about two generations.
It is almost certain Texas will become a member of the Constitutional Carry club in 2021. It will make Texas the 21st state to join the club. There have not been any statistically significant ill effects from Constitutional Carry in any of the previous 20 states.
HB 1927, in its final form of the Conference Committee report contains some relatively minor amendments wrangled over and included in the legislative process.
1. Peace Officers may disarm a person at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the person, officer or another person. The officer shall return the handgun if the officer determines the person is not a threat before the person leaves the scene.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
A provision in the bill is to provide for all convicted of carrying illegally before the bill was passed, to have their arrests and convictions removed from the record.
As I understand that will depend on associated or relevant circumstances, like if it was in association with, say domestic violence or certain other felonies that may have been committed in association with the original illegal possessions case.
I want to read the language in the passed bill as I'm also to understand that the police chiefs concerns were also addressed which prevent certain other classes of folks from taking advantage of this new law but have not heard anyone speak on just what these classes of folks are even though they can legally purchase firearms and possess them under the Castle Doctrine.
I won’t celebrate until the ink is dry. I’ve had my hopes crushed by the mushy Republicans too often. Abbot doesn’t inspire a lot of faith in his leadership.
The bill should be signed soon. It will not take effect until 1 September.
Local Texas jurisdictions will make some money off of this one. I’m already starting to hear it. “30.05? 30.06? 30.07? Signs? What signs? Nah! You can pack anywhere. Hold ma beer and watch this!”
Texas is also now a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary state.
Excellent! We need every Southern state to adopt constitutional carry and declare itself to be a 2nd Amendment sanctuary.
The signs indicate Texas is gun-friendly.
They make clear where people oppose the exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Not sure what you mean by this?
Do you mean the small towns will arrest even if the proper signs aren’t there? Or do you mean that people will court folks with gun friendly signs to get folks in the door?
I’m confused.
You need to read the signs.
What I mean is that some people naturally assume that the new law will allow carrying anywhere and anytime they feel like it. That's not the case.
Too bad TX didn’t simply pass an unequivocating bill.
Just how does the law define “a danger to” .
Is merely possessing a weapon or skill included or is it more robust in its view of due process, with intent and other factors to be scrutinized before an officer has cause to “disarm” some one?
Here in Missouri, officers may disarm a permitted/licensed or non permitted open or concealed carrier only if they determine they are arresting that person.
So far this has not led to mass arrests of armed folks at every police interaction. Nor increased risk to officers. Good guys act rightly, bad guys don’t.
The idea that an officer who is simply afraid of an armed person and therefore authorized to deprive them if a constitutional right is ridiculous on its face.
That is not what the law says. It requires a "reasonable belief" that is already the state of the law in most of the country.
If a peace officer "reasonably believes" a person is a threat to themselves or others, they may be disarmed.
A "reasonable belief" is not mere opinion, and is subject to proof in a court of law.
So Terry applies? Articulable reason suspicion that a crime has been is being or will be committed. Not just the fact that Tex is wearing a hogleg on his hip minding his own lawful business.
That’s good.
That’s what we made sure was in the statute here in MO.
Simple interaction or even temporary detention is not cause to disarm.
We will see how it goes, but Texas has plenty of activists who will be celebrating Constitutional Carry.
They will be recording numerous interactions and will be willing to sue to uphold their rights.
I expect a push to change the Texas Constitution protection of keep and bear arms back to the 1845 version.
That would further institutionalize and protect Constitutional Carry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.