So they changed school, premises. I remember reading a story last year about a dad with a license caring openly right up to the school door, and they called the police but he was within the chl guidelines and nothing could be done.
Premises means building or portion of a building. Not outside. Non license holders cannot be on the grounds. But if in your vehicle you should be good either way.
Same applies at post office, banks, airports, ........... I forgot about my boot back up. License saved my old ass. I hate cities and ignorant!! Fun Fact, after outlawing firearms in UK, stabbings went up 800%. Then after knife control, punks are throwing acid in people's faces to rob them. Happened to a pretty 20 something year old model. Another not so fun fact, with all these gun laws, the papers in the laws stack up over 2 feet!
The week Constitutional Carry was implemented I took the online LTC course, found an instructor that week to do my shooting proficiency test and made an appointment for my fingerprints. 3 weeks later I had my LTC. Yes, it sounds counter intuitive, but I knew it would never be easier to get my LTC and you know 30.05 signs are going to be popping up everywhere. Also, gubernatorial elections are coming up in 2022 and we could very well wind up with a State government not so friendly toward permitless carry and could impose severe restrictions on those without a LTC.
I think most people are still are unaware of constitutional carry is in place. If not for my brother in law telling me I’d probably have zero clue about it.
So let me get this straight. If a business has a 30.06 or 30.07 sign up…but I don’t have a license…I can still carry on the premises without consequence? But people WITH a license will get in trouble? Am I understanding that correctly? It sounds very backwards to me.
Exactly correct. And your opinion is valid. 30.06 / 30.07 literally address LTC holders in the title and in the verbage contained in the sign. The 30.05 sign applies mainly to those without a license. Having an LTC is only a defense to the prosecution of TPC 30.05.
@@PrimalDefenseCo I was convicted and was in jail but later I went thru the courts after probation and everything was completed and was able to change it to dismissed it’s confusing
I would find out the details. If it we a Domestic class A or above, and you get caught with that thing, they are taking you to county. Be safe, check out to be sure.
Not exactly. The definition of open carrying is carrying it in a way that is openly discernable to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person. That is up for debate. I personally feel that deliberate printing is open carry. For example, wearing a super tight shirt over your gun that makes it obvious to the ordinary person. The thing is, open carrying is only unlawful on college campuses and on places where open carry is prohibited by the property owner/manager. So you don't need to worry much about it unless you are in one of those places.
@@rizeq0886 if you are driving, your state driver's license will work. If you are not driving, it is a good idea to have ID on you. It is not illegal for you to not have ID. But any state id will work fine.
Hey I'm canadian and have legal firearms , could I bring em down in to the US, so could I carry one of them in Texas ? Or are these laws only for residents if Texas
Constilutional carry is for everyone regardless of your residency. Thats why its called "Constiutional" carry. I can be a resident of Florida, drive to Texas and take advantage of constitutional carry (as long as I abide by the federal laws ie, no felonies, over 21 etc...) What I CAN NOT do is buy a gun in a gun shop with an out of state drivers lic, because I am not a resident All states have this same statutue.
@@PrimalDefenseCo yes but it wasn’t involving a firearm or a family violence . And when I’ll filled my form out it didn’t ask me anything about an assault or any of that .
People under 21 who are veterans or active duty military can obtain a LTC. A federal court ruled the banning of people 18-20 from buying handguns from FFL dealer is unconstitutional. There still need to be further legal process for that to come to a head. People 18-20 can still buy a handgun in a private sale/transfer.
This is so great. I have extreme anger issues and severe impulse control issues. Plus I truly only care about myself. I now carry 4 guns at all times. Before I would have to spend at least 45min physically fighting someone breaking one of their appendages and would have to spend at least and hour cleaning their flesh from under my nails. Now when I'm at restaurant and someone is taking too long or if some xunt is trying to merge in front of me. I can just solve the problem in mere seconds and go about my day. Thanx Abbott 😊 🙏 😊 🙏 😊 🤪🤪🤪😘😘
Good thing you are not the only one carrying. Assault, aggravated assault, and murder are illegal. If anyone violates those laws, they are willing to violate any gun law. My rights are not limited by the actions of crooks, gangbangers, robbers, and rapists.
If you provide us with the correct info, including the state statute citation, we will re-do this and give you credit. Keep in mind, a few things have changed since the filming of this video. It is still 99.9 percent accurate at the least.
Thanks for keeping it simple and direct. I asked a law enforcement friend what advantage there was to getting a carry permit and her answer was when you are stopped by law enforcement it puts their mind at ease when approaching someone they've stopped for whatever reason. This has been a headache for our law enforcement community because they don't know what your intent is with open carrying.
There are a few more. Like faster turnaround when making an FFL purchase, reciprocity with other states, can go past 30.05 signs. Thank you for watching. Appreciate ya!
@@kittyhawk7060 open carry makes you the first target if you in a bad situation concealed weapon gives you a better chance of protecting your self and others think about it don't be the first 🎯
Great video! Lots of people tell me it’s only open carry included in the bill. So thanks for clearing that up. I’ve had my ltc for a while now and will let it expire because of the new law. It’s just my personal belief that I shouldn’t need a license to carry my legal firearm. But I also understand why others would want to keep the ltc. Thanks for the information brother!
Can a disabled veteran with documented medical depression be able to own a firearm in Texas? I recently moved here and want to avoid the embarrassment of going to a gun store and be denied of purchase. Thank you.
Do you manage your own affairs? If you have a fiduciary assigned to you or if a doctor has determined you are a threat to yourself and others, you may not be able to purchase a gun from an FFL dealer. If you have not been ruled incompetent or a risk to people's safety then you are fine to own an one. Serving our country then having to deal with some stuff afterwards does not make you less worthy of your rights. Thank you for your service. I appreciate you.
Probably a few more benefits to having one. More of a benefit to some than others. Like when buying a G at the store. Some people pass the background quickly. Some don't. With the license, another background is not conducted.
So, how does this affect carrying in your vehicle? Does it still need to be "out of plain sight"? Or, can you lay it on your seat next to you out in the open?
Once again, great information. I kept getting biased news coverage when looking for the information then decided to check your channel. Guess it’s time to turn on the notifications
I really try not to be one sided. Facts and reasonableness are my goals. A lot of people disagree with some of the stuff I say. But it's as close to the truth as I can put it. Thanks for the support brother!
What did the "founding fathers" do? They disallowed arms in prisons and mental health facilities--and that is pretty much it. The founders knew that carry by everyone who wanted to would predominantly keep us safer than being restrictive. Even felons were given their guns back upon release, and same with those who had been in mental health facilities. BTW, the founders used "arms" for a reason--"arms" includes ammo, swords, knives, cannon, etc. No. I had a stroke several years ago and no longer think well on my feet so to speak. Some folks want to know background--former police officer w/degree in Police Science, former Army MP, retired from Texas prison, and retired Army civilian.@@PrimalDefenseCo
If ANYONE is prohibited from carrying, then it is NOT Constitutional Carry. NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say you have "rights" only if you follow our rules. We either have the 2nd Amendment or we don't.
My brother was in law enforcement. Please be aware that in Texas, there are many undertrained peace officers and a disturbingly large number of corrupt officers who have little regard for citizens rights, and will take the law into their own hands. In other words, if an officer is having a bad day, they will knowingly break the law themselves and violate a citizen's civil rights because they feel like it. Other officers will, all too often, help in covering up civil rights violations to protect their fellow officers. Corrupt peace officers are a Very Small minority in Texas, but their numbers are high enough to intimidate me from carrying a weapon. In the Real World, I would advise against it.
This is literally the reason the 2nd amendment was established! To protect yourself from a tyrannical government. Don't let crooked cops keep you from protecting you and your family.
I’m a Texas resident and if I’m being honest. It’s all about knowing the law,I’ve unfortunately had run ins with the law here and there but I will say everything was completely professional and I admit everything was my fault completely (speeding,weed,dark tint) but I knew I was breaking the law when I went in,that being said,It’s always a good idea to call local state offices and get the local law of the land when traveling with any weapon,I always travel with my firearm and have had no negative experiences due to just the fact I had a firearm.
Yes, unfortunately I am worried about this also. Even if not corrupt, police officers might not be trained enough to even know it’s ok to carry. So u may get into a lot of trouble just walking on the street with a gun in the holster. I do keep mine in my vehicle, but I don’t feel comfortable having it out on my person.
I will second this. When I went through the police academy I had to bring my gun to class during firearms training. Our instructor (30 year veteran PO) told us that there are some cops out there that have a single intention - and that is to RUIN YOUR DAY. He told us to be very careful on our way home and to keep the firearm within the law (this was BEFORE the CHL). This is from a Texas cop with a MASTER peace officer license (look it up). And he is right. There is good and bad in all - isn't that what the Bible tells us? When I graduated and became a peace officer I always gave leniency to CHL holders - if you go through that much trouble to obey the law (which was already granted to you by God), then why should you be considered a threat? Always be vigilant though.
Yes, I know Social Security is a gov agency, but still, people go there with some weapon. That means no knives, either. Sharing because it is pretty apparent when you have to head back to your car after they make the morning brief.
If it were truly constitutional you'd not need to be a Texas resident to do so, e.g. as a resident of Arizona I can carry open or concealed without a permit, yet I can not do so in Texas. My other rights do not end at a state line, so that is clearly unconstitutional.
Anyone legally in Texas who is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm (felon) can carry in Texas just as any other Texas resident. One does not need to be a Texas resident.
@@opa_plays_mw5318 Texas Penal Code Chapter 46 is all about weapons in TX. Generally, the way the law works in Texas is, the law will outline what is illegal. If there isn't a law establishing something to be illegal, then it is not illegal. Texas Penal Code 46.02 is the Unlawful Carrying Weapons statute. 46.03 is the prohibited places statute (places off limits). 46.04 is the Unlawful Possession statute (who cannot possess). 46.05 is the prohibited weapons statute 46.15 is the non-applicability statute (when certain gun laws do not apply to someone). There are a bunch more..but basically, these are the statutes that people need to know.
Well, I don't think we need to worry about the laws. But, it is good that we know what's on the books, if we do not, how will we know to bring it up to lawmakers? I want to see gun safety, marksmanship, and self defense 101 as a prerequisite to graduate high school.
Felony conviction and you are prohibited from possessing. The listed misdemeanors prevent you from exercising constitutional carry for a few years after the offense. If that makes sense.
@@Thetexan210 I need to check, but if I'm not mistaken, they are disqualifying factors for about 3 to 5 years from date of conviction. Easy place to find it is on the Q and A section of the DPS handgun licensing section on their website. I will try and get a link for you.
You as a Texan have always been due to the Castle Doctrine. It extends to your vehicle as long as you drive and you are the registered owner of the vehicle.
All restrictions, ordinances and so called gun laws are unconstitutional and MUST be removed! Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government. Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights. When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments. By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint. A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them? When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.] As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power. If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree. Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions. Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” -Samuel Adams, 1772 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
I wouldn't frequent a business that has one of these notices whether carrying or not. In the state that I live in, which is also a Constitutional Carry State, these signs carry no legal weight and if you're carrying and go into one of these places, you can't be charged with a crime. That is, unless they ask you to leave and you refuse.... Then, you are trespassing (armed or not). Although, I am armed 99% of the time, I won't give a business my money if they don't allow firearms in their place of business. I'll also add that you can't carry in any federal building or court house. You can carry in a school with permission from the school officials. So, I would always follow that as it is the law.
So as long as your not a Criminal you carry a gun in Texas. Sounds good to me. I have been open carrying in Texas for 35 years and will continue to do so. That's why I continue to vote for Greg Abbott. He respects lawful gun owners wishes. Democrat Politicians in Texas are trying to run for office to take our guns like Beaver 🦫Teeth Beto O'rourke 😬.
The vehicle must be yours or under your control. Or you can just have the driver say that what's his is yours and you have every right to carry in the vehicle. Can you still get in trouble? Maybe. But nothing that I see sticking. Although, I am not an attorney, I am state certified to teach this stuff in the state of a Texas and I am a Texas cop. You probably will not be able to carry in an Uber without an LTC. They can always prohibit you with or without having the license.
Generally, if you have been involuntarily committed, or you have been found to be a danger to yourself or the public, you are Prohibited by federal law.
How does this effect those TABC signs that say "the unlicensed possession of the firearm on this premise is a felony...", the signs that are at places that sell alcohol for off-site consumption?
Most of them have been repealed as of September 1st. If you would like to read through the section in the bill that outlines this specific part I can provide it to you.
@@BryceKant thank you bud. If you have any questions feel free to reach out. And if I do not know, I will find the answer. Or I will direct you to someone who knows.
Congratulations Texas. I want to rally all my Minnesota gun owners and have a gathering at the capitol . RIGHT to bear arms doesn’t mean I have to ask PERMISSION to carry a firearm. If that was the case it would be a privilege. As gun owners we need to stand up for our rights before it’s too late
All restrictions, ordinances and so called gun laws are unconstitutional and MUST be removed! Regarding the governments ability to impose "Reasonable Restraint" which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government. Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights. When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments. By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint. A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them? When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can't be limited or taken away.] As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power. If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree. Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions. Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.” Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” -Samuel Adams, 1772 Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.” Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
@@PrimalDefenseCo and as far as getting one what’s required I already have a pistol that was gifted by my mom would it be holster and going to the classes?
Same. On your person, holstered, or out of plain sight if not holstered. Unless you are under 21 or have certain convictions. In that case must be out of plain sight.
My apartment complex has a gun restriction posted, but I think it’s for the communal areas only. Do I still have a constitutional right to own a fire arm in my apartment housing?
Yes. They cannot prohibit you from possessing a firearm or ammunition in your vehicle, private, residential, or communal areas. Perhaps they can only in their private areas. Such as maybe a private office not open to the residents without invitation to enter. They cannot prohibit your guests from possessing the same either. Those signs apply to non residents who have no real business being on the property.
@@forcefulkenobi3802 we have a few more vids on the subject. And regularly post updates. Thanks for watching. Appreciate ya. Give us a hand, subscribe if you have not and spread the word!
@@angelo2939 courts ruled that the state cannot prohibit people under 21 from carrying in public. But the changes in law have not been made yet. They are coming soon though.
Thats a tough one man. Depends on what the conditions were. In Texas, some deferred charges are considered convictions, some are not. It would be best to ask an attorney on that one. Or go to the court that handled the charges and see what they say. Sorry I couldn't help more bud.
I read a statistic that a lot of criminals obtain firearms from people who leave them in their vehicles. Government officials, officers, and responsible gun owners often preach to us to secure our belongings. All these businesses that do not allow to to enter their establishment with a firearm is also aiding criminals, by forcing you to also leave that gun in your vehicle. There are ways to properly secure your firearm even if you have to leave it in your vehicle, let’s be responsible and take advantage of that.
@@CFGR01 in a safe is cool. I'm not familiar with the vaultek. I do know that some small safes open up easy with a few taps of a hammer on the right place.
Texas ltc is violative of the texas constitution, Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All freemen†, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and >>>no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges,
LTC does little anymore. Grants you a defense to violating the 30.05 TPC notice, prohibits a public college from prohibiting the possession of a handgun on campus, serves as proof of background check on FFL transfers, and is accepted in several other states.
What if I never been to court for family violence and was no family violence, the victim assaulted me and I defended my self but since it was a lady like they said I assaulted
@@mexarroyo if the charges were dismissed then you were never convicted. You can run your name on DPS crime data base for $3. It will show any convictions. If no convictions then you are good.
If you have a conceal carry license can you place your firearm that is still in a holster in a cup holder? Some people say yes and some say no. Need a official answer.
The wording says, "Carried in a holster". It does not give details as to where or how. So yes, it can be argued that the gun is not being "carried" if it is in a holster inside of cup holder and not on your person. But in my opinion that is splitting hairs. I really don't think it should matter. Any law enforcement officer worth his salt should not arrest someone for having a gun in a holster in the cup holder. But again, there may be a few out there that would make an issue of it. An issue that is not worth your time, their time, the department's, and the D.A.s time and resources. I hope this helped.
@@MrBlack-vg8rv ill give you a free code to take the online portion free. If you are from south Texas, I'll qualify you for free. I feel ya brother. It ain't easy out here.
Just to be sure I understand this correctly. To me it appears open carry means openly carrying for all to see. Not hidden… so I have to make sure everyone can see it. So, with the new law for open carry: since I do NOT have a concealed carry license. I cannot carry a concealed weapon on me. Like in a backpack Or hip holster inside my pants or an ankle holster since those are obviously concealed? But if I did have a concealed carry license; I could carry either way. Sorry for my perhaps silly questions but I do not want to get it wrong and end up in prison, or shot by some over zealous police officer. If I ever get into a situation I may only get one chance to do it right.
You can carry open or concealed without a license anywhere you are allowed to enter. If you are under 21, you can only carry in your vehicle/boat/property and must be out of plain sight. Unless you are under 21 and you have a license to carry. Someone under 21 qualifies for a license only if they are military.
Thank you so much for your reply. I’m way over 21 years old. I am not a felon. Never had a domestic problem that got law enforcement involved. (Once got involved in a sisters domestic situation because her man hit her in the face and stomach right in front of me) but no police were involved.
@cameraflyer yes. just reaffirming that service members under 21 can carry outside of their home/vehicle. Only that they must have an LTC to do it. although I believe they shouldn't be required to obtain an LTC to exercise their right to carry like everyone else. They can serve in our military, they should be able to carry a gun in public, even if they are under 21.
