Bills Allowing Permitless Carry and First-Responder Carry Advance

By Woody published on in Legal, News

A Texas House committee has approved legislation that would allow handguns to be carried—concealed or in a holster—without a state-issued license. Also, the Texas Senate has passed SB 1408, a bill to allow first responders to carry concealed.

Texas Law Shield Logo

The just-passed version of HB 1911’s permitless carry provisions approved by the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee contained several substantial changes from previous versions.

  • To carry without a permit, gun owners would have to meet existing LTC standards: be 21 years of age or older, have no criminal convictions, and be eligible to purchase a weapon under federal and state laws. The previous version would have allowed guns to be carried by those 18 and older.
  • Churches and places of worship would no longer be prohibited places to carry a gun unless they posted 30.06 and/or 30.07 signs.
  • Handguns carried in the open would still be required to be kept in a holster, but the restrictions on them being in a belt or shoulder holsters would be loosened.

“This bill simply creates an unlicensed option to carrying a handgun,” said Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford., chairman of the committee.

A competing bill, House Bill 375 by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, wasn’t considered for a vote. Stickland’s legislation would allow anybody who legally owns a firearm to carry it without a license—a much broader franchise than what’s being considered in HB 1911.

“We understand that for the most part, Texans are satisfied with the current carry laws we have now. However, there is still a significant number of Texans who believe that if you’re a law-abiding citizen, you shouldn’t necessarily have to buy your way to a right to bear arms through a license,” Rep. James White (R-Hillister) told the Austin American-Statesman.

Over in the state Senate, SB 1408, brought by Senator Don Huffines (R-Dallas), would allow first responders to carry a handgun on duty if they have Licenses to Carry (LTC) and have completed a special on-duty first responder training course that will be approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Senator Huffines said, “As first responders answer our cries for help, we cannot leave them exposed to attack. First responders do dangerous work and sometimes come under fire. In a time in which our police are targeted just because of their uniform and badge, we must not leave first responders disarmed and exposed to danger, either.”

If you feel that either piece of legislation should continue, please contact your representative and voice your support for these measures.

Check out these other great articles from U.S. Law Shield or click here to become a member.

The just-released video above is from the Florida State Attorney’s Office, supporting a judge’s ruling that a citizen who opened fire on a man attacking a Lee County deputy last year was justified in using deadly force.

Taking the family to a state or national park this summer? Then you need to know the rules about firearms carry at your destinations,

Tags: ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (18)

  • james hemmingway

    |

    We have been and are still being lied to in regards to CCW / CHL.
    Here are the facts: Please feel free to copy this and pass it on.
    MARBURY vs MADISON states that our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
    MURDOCK vs PENNSYLVANIA 319 u.s. 105 states that a State can NOT convert any Constitutional Right into a Privilege by requiring a License and FEE.
    SHUTTLEWORTH vs BIRMINGHAM ALABAMA 373 u.s. 262 states that if a State converts a Constitutional Right into a Privilege by requiring a License and Fee a person does NOT have to obey this Un-Constitutional Law and the person can do so with Immunity. It means that a person can NOT be punished for disobeying the Un-Constitutional Law.
    U.S. vs BISHOP 412 u.s. 346 states that there is No Willful Intent if a person relies on the Constitution and Supreme Court Cases. This prevents the Prosecutor from successfully prosecuting a person because it takes away the element of Willful Intent.
    The next 2 cases remove their Judicial Immunity and allows a person to Sue the Court / Judge / Prosecutor / State for not holding up / for not following the Constitution. Specifically, these 2 case are OWEN vs CITY OF INDEPENDENCE 100 Supreme Court Reports 1398 and MAINE vs THIBOUTOT 100 Supreme Court Reports 2502. These are the facts and they have lied to us because they do not want the American Citizen to possess and carry firearms. From the comments by some people claiming to be Law Enforcement it seems that they are part of this lie. Again, a State can NOT convert any Constitutional Right into a Privilege.

    Reply

    • Jay Schell

      |

      Kudos to you sir, for not only are you right, but you have the documents to prove it! With this info I could imagine a lot of lawsuits arising from wrongly prosecuted law abiding citizens! I hope everyone who reads this passes this important info along to others!

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: