TexasCHLforum.com

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:One example every two years supports MY argument, not yours actually.

I'm not making an argument. I merely pointed out a fact: that although signs are bad they are not necessarily forever. Are these the only examples? Probably not but they are enough for my purposes. All CHLers should hate new legit 30.06 signs. Only time will tell if "they will make CHLs irrelevant" but I highly doubt it. The number of legit signs I encounter are very, very few. My real point is to not blow the issue out of proportion.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs. I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole. Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon. My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades. As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

SA-TX

When did signs go down due to CHL protest. Do you have actual examples of such?

Based on searches here Taco Cabana seems to be the most well-known example. Here are some other examples of signs coming down and judge for yourself if they are a result of "CHL protest" (one is where a CHLer in MN has their equivalent sign removed).

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49631&p=609167&hili ... ed#p609167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42882&p=518285&hili ... ed#p518285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27354&p=312372&hili ... ed#p312372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point was: Have any business reversed course after initially posting an anti-gun or fully compliant 30.06 sign? Yes there are examples of this. Sign today or as a result of the OC zealots doesn't necessarily equal forever. As mentioned, I personal know that Fry's Electronics in Arlington one had a 30.06 sign but room it down some number of years ago.

SA-TX

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

No I don't. My point is that even if the penalty is reduced in order to get the statute passed, the law is still effective. Even $500/day would garner attention in a negative way.

I agree. Hopefully, the legislators won't use the amount of the fine as "justification" not to pass the legislation. Just trying to think ahead some.

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

srothstein wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:I don't particularly agree with them doing that, but if they're able to reuse driver's license photos for CHL's they should be able to reuse fingerprints for CHL's.

Every time I see someone saying this, it bothers me. It indicates that you do not understand the purpose of the fingerprints. I am not supporting or opposing the use of fingerprints or the need for them, but explaining why reusing them is not possible.

The purpose of fingerprints for a license are to verify that you are indeed the person who the license is intended fro (the name and prints should match). If DPS was to allow someone to get a new license without being fingerprinted, it would set up identity theft with me getting your name on my new CHL. This is true whether the license is you CHL, DL, Engineer, appraiser, police, or security guard license. This also is why new prints are not really necessary for renewals. The assumption is that the person has already been verified.

And yes, this system is based on the assumption that the first time you get fingerprinted, you are telling the truth about your identity. The fingerprints will forever be tied to that name. I have had at least one case where the first time a suspect had been arrested, he used an alias. when I arrested him, he kept trying to tell me it was an alias and give me his real name. The real name was listed as an alias on his records, so it did not matter to me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
That may change if elected officials make it clear that continuing to put them in an untenable position will result in diminished opportunities to pass other pro-gun legislation.

Chas.

Pawpaw wrote:I just would like to see some way to prevent some well meaning but misguided leadership team from going astray. I don't know how, or even if, that could be accomplished, but it is a concern.