TexasCHLforum.com

Your argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply in Texas might have had the illusion of merit before the McDonald decision.

Oldgringo wrote:IDEA! Let's have an amendment whereby the voters can decide if a "political jurisdiction" wants OC or not. Let the voters decide. Ain't that the American way?

Do they also get to decide if they will allow Mosques? How about allowing Negros to vote?

Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights, no matter how much bigots don't like "those people" having rights.

canvasbck wrote:Your statement about property rights is not valid in this case. 30.06 allows a business to bar firearms from their business but 30.06 does not extend to the parking lot of said business.

It depends where they post the signs.

If you read the 30.06 law, you'll see that it says "property" and not "premises" so there's no reason to believe parking lots or green areas can't be posted under 30.05 or 30.06 to prohibit trespassing.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yeah, in theory you would have to do so for long guns

That's what I said. No different than now. There are places that already have "no weapons" signs or policies.

It sounds like his problem is with the company policy, not the law. Perhaps he should find a different job if he doesn't like the company policy.

In any event, If we allow businesses to post 30.06 signs to prohibit concealed handguns, I don't see how we can reasonably prohibit businesses from firing employees who violate a policy against concealed handguns. It doesn't make sense. Either businesses have private property rights that allow them to prohibit guns, or they don't.

canvasbck wrote:Why on earth do we have laws that allow everyone without a criminal history to protect themselves as long as they are not heading to/from work?

I just got home from work and carried to/from work without incident. Completely legal.

bdickens wrote:Charles has pointed out before that there is no way the legislature is going to have a two-sign requirement.

There's no need for a two-sign requirement, other than the current two-sign requirement. A 30.06 sign does not prohibit shotguns or rifles, whether carried openly or concealed. For that they need a generic "no guns" sign or similar notice.

Right now, a generic "no guns" or "no weapons" sign applies to almost everyone except:
A CHL carrying a concealed handgun and a license. [30.05(f) & 30.06]
A LEO carrying a handgun or other weapon. [30.05(i)]

As I hinted on page 8, if the requirement to conceal was lifted, and the wording of 30.05 and 30.06 remained exactly the same as right now, the 30.05(f) defense would still only apply if "the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license" so any notice under 30.05 would be sufficient to continue to prohibit openly carried handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. Except for cops.

.30calSolution wrote:I don't think Texas would ever get the legislation passed to OC. The problem is that the states that currently have legality to OC have always been that way, meaning that they didn't have to pass a law to OC.

Excellent point. States with more of a pro-gun tradition never had our complete ban on normal citizens carrying handguns. We're fighting an uphill battle in Texas and we have to continue fighting it.

I reread 30.05(f) and I don't see why legalizing unconcealed handguns would cause signage problems that (already legal) unconcealed long guns don't.

Perhaps I too lack sufficient imagination.