Texas House Bill 1935 Tracking Thread

Any word if the governor has signed the bill? Is it too early too expect that?
 
DunkEm said:
Any word if the governor has signed the bill? Is it too early too expect that?
Click to expand...

Too early. Perhaps next week, could be later, the law is that for legislation transmitted with less than 10 days left in the session, the governor has 20 days after adjournment to act, or the legislation becomes law without being signed.
 
knifelobbyist said:
PASSED 30 - 1 !!!!!!
Click to expand...

Great work getting this bill passed ! I won't lie, the last time I kept up with something like this was back in 2013 on the repeal on our switchblade ban. While I vaguely remember how that all came to be, I do remember that when the bill was passed, we still had to wait till the fall for it to be official. Would I be correct in assuming the same thing about this bill being passed as well ?
 
CORRECTION: Assuming the Governor signs the bill, the effective date is Sept. 1.
 
Last edited:
It takes a while for bills to wind their way through the halls of the Capitol. Although the Senate passed the bill on 5/24, it was late at night and passage was not reported back to the House (officially) until the next day (5/25).

The bill's next step was to be signed by the House as the originating legislative body. It was signed yesterday (5/28).

Now it goes back to the Senate to be signed. That usually takes place the next day, but may be delayed until tomorrow as today is a holiday.

After that, it will go to the Governor for signature. This usually occurs the same day the Senate signs it, as officially signing bills that come over from the House after being signed happens first thing in the morning, allowing all afternoon for the H/S signed bills to be copied and forwarded up the food chain.

Signing by the Governor will probably take place anywhere from 7 days to 20 days after that. As long as he doesn't veto it, even if he doesn't sign it, the bill will take effect 01 September.

Governors usually only veto bills they are opposed to. They usually only allow bills to go into effect without their signature for bills that are very controversial but are personally in support of. That's so they can "claim" they didn't support the controversial bill at re-election time.

I fully expect the Governor to sign it in about 14 days.
 
I know this is a knife oriented forum, but may I ask Knifelobbyist if he also does work like this for laws on other types of weapons ? I had always believed that our laws on clubs were pointless due to how incredibly outdated (we specifically ban tomahawks and maces in our statutes) and obscure (any instrument designed to injure or kill by swinging and striking someone, which covers an extremely broad spectrum) this ban is. I figured all other items readily available to law enforcement and private security were legal, so the ban we have on batons or similar items would have been repealed long before our ban on illegal knives would have been. Apologies that this question is not pertinent to the thread topic, but I was just curious is all.
 
Last edited:
To be really blunt...like a baton...I lobby for any freedom related issue that I'm PAID to lobby for. The issue is that there is no "baton association" to foot such a bill.
 
knifelobbyist said:
To be really blunt...like a baton...I lobby for any freedom related issue that I'm PAID to lobby for. The issue is that there is no "baton association" to foot such a bill.
Click to expand...

OK, my bad, I mistook the scope of what you lobby for. I thought it was against pointless and archaic weapon bans in general, but thank you for clarifying the matter and answering my question.
 
Please forgive my ignorance, but is there any nomenclature in the law about signage such as 30-07 banning the carry of knives in establishments?
30-07 is of course regarding firearms, just wondered if there was anything similar regarding knives?
 
The only similar verbage is the creation of the "restricted knives" category. "Restricted knives" are what was being called "illegal knives", i.e., knives with a blade length greater than 5-1/2", in the penal code sections being modified/rescinded.

The "restricted knives" are "restricted" as to where they may NOT be carried - churches, schools, universities, 51% establishments, correctional facilities, and maybe 1 or 2 more. I just remember that whatever the other ones are, I never go there, so I didn't memorize all of them.

Keep in mind, THE CHANGES ARE NOT YET EFFECTIVE. Assuming that he Governor does NOT veto the bill, the changes will NOT be effective until 01 September 2017. Until that date, current illegal knives are still illegal to carry in public.
 
As a law enforcement officer and knife maker in Texas I am glad to see this stuff change and hope nothing happens between now and Sept 1 to stop it. Because by the letter of the law a filet knife or hunting knife are illegal under the current law and there is no provision to be legal that I have ever seen.
 
garyc01 said:
As a law enforcement officer and knife maker in Texas I am glad to see this stuff change and hope nothing happens between now and Sept 1 to stop it. Because by the letter of the law a filet knife or hunting knife are illegal under the current law and there is no provision to be legal that I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

If you are hunting in TX, you can legally carry a blade longer than 5.5".
 
garyc01 said:
As a law enforcement officer and knife maker in Texas I am glad to see this stuff change and hope nothing happens between now and Sept 1 to stop it. Because by the letter of the law a filet knife or hunting knife are illegal under the current law and there is no provision to be legal that I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Seems to be provisions here:
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(2) is traveling;
(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor's residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

Those appear to be provisions for legality to me. How do you consider them not to be?
 
I've been trying my best to follow along, but some of this stuff is simply going right over my head. It's confusing. Can anybody give me a break down of just what this bill did in the form that was passed and signed into law, and what it didn't do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top