Critical legislation for 2015

[gsansing]

As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

Except open carry, per Charles, would not pass if it were tied to 30.06. I wouldn't want it to either. Why change 30.06 and give people a chance to water it down in the process. If our choice was open carried tied to 30.06 or no open carry, I'd choose no open carry.

Imagine a future where open carry passes and the 30.06 sign still only applies to CCW....

I think the fear is that businesses would see people open carrying, not like it, and then find out that hey, there's this 30.06 sign that will prevent people from carrying guns on their property. Well, no, the 30.06 sign would only prevent legal CCW and people will have been doing it for a long time before open carry. But right now CCW is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and the fear is that open carry will cause more 30.06 postings even if posting them doesn't do anything legally to stop open carry.

While I can certainly understand your point, do you feel this has come to pass? What's worse I believe we have ourselves to blame for letting the proverbial cat out the bag.The screen shot posted above was pulled from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook page, and I have no doubt that I'm not the only one who has seen this. Yes, gentlemen I am sure this is probably not the first time this little anti-gun anecdote has been passed around the interweb; which proved more and more for a way for the anti-gun camps for pressure stores to post 30.06.

As most of us on here believe, without doubt some of this is being spurred from the OC camps walking into public places with an AR strapped to their backs.

Gentlemen, I would also like to add that I am new here and my intent is not to ruffle feathers; however I am by no means new to firearms or for that matter the issues surrounding them.

[gsansing]

Spoke with both my Senator and Rep, yesterday. Both have a pro-gun and pro 2A reputation. I expressed what I would like to see for this upcoming session. Both were very pleased and eager to inform me that Open Carry was alive and well. Please bear in mind, I did not bring that particular subject up, and that they both offered this up to me. Also both reported to fielding numerous calls from their constituents voicing support for Open Carry and other pro-gun legislation.

Along with other items that I would like to see changed, both seemed very on board for an pro gun legislation. Mr. Cotton, my Rep and Senator seem to be on our side.

I hope this helps.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Spoke with both my Senator and Rep, yesterday. Both have a pro-gun and pro 2A reputation. I expressed what I would like to see for this upcoming session. Both were very pleased and eager to inform me that Open Carry was alive and well. Please bear in mind, I did not bring that particular subject up, and that they both offered this up to me. Also both reported to fielding numerous calls from their constituents voicing support for Open Carry and other pro-gun legislation.

Along with other items that I would like to see changed, both seemed very on board for an pro gun legislation. Mr. Cotton, my Rep and Senator seem to be on our side.

I hope this helps.

Who are they? Also, what other issues did they offer to support?

Chas.

[gsansing]

Sen. Craig Estes( District 30) and Rep. Scott Sanford(District 70)

Mr. Cotton-

I brought up the poll you had posted on this forum, both were receptive to the ideas being "kicked around" on here. When I brought dropping the gun free zones for CHL holders, both seemed to react like they already had that on their mind.

Another issue for me was reducing the penalty for violation of a 30.06 sign. I mentioned that due to my career(firefighter) a Class A misdemeanor seemed harsh for what could be an unintentional oversight of a sign. A Class A conviction would mean the end of my career. Sen. Estes asked if he could add my name to a list to be called down to Austin to speak on behalf of such a bill. Of course, I obliged.

For anybody who has recently contacted their Senator to Rep, be patient. Mine both told me they have been busy with the border issues and have been slow returning calls and emails.

[mojo84]

Good info gsansing. Appreciate your efforts and sharing your feedback on here.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Sen. Craig Estes( District 30) and Rep. Scott Sanford(District 70).

I don't know Rep. Sanford personally, but Sen. Estes is great on our issues! He was the Senate sponsor of SB766, Texas Sport Shooting Range Protection Law, and he was chair of the public hearings April 7th Interim Study that included open-carry. He will be good on every bill we bring.

Chas.

[Dad24GreatKids]

With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.

I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).

Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.

Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allows people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.

Chas.

I was going to say something, but Mr Cotton has said it much better than I can.

Thank you sir.

With 50% of churches in America having fewer than 75 people and 90% having fewer than 350 people it can be difficult to pay a security guard or an off duty LEO. A church volunteer is more likely to know the ins and outs of the congregation, facility, etc.

[Dad24GreatKids]

With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.

I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).

Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.

Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allow people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.

Chas.

I voted for this one, but I do have one concern. That would be the seeking out of CHLers for the security team or, even worse, a church requiring all security team members to have a CHL and be armed. That could easily get out of hand and result in a bad situation. I would hate to know someone got their CHL just so they could "play cop" at church.

IMHO, having worked with E&E teams for years, this concern simply doesn't have much validity. Any reputable church organization is going to vet their team members stringently. In order to be effective these team members have to be people who interact well with both members of the church and guests. We aren't talking about loners who don't fit in.
Simply put, there is not a member of my E&E team who couldn't be a cop if that was their calling in life. If they wanted to "play cop" they would do exactly that and get payed for it.
Remember, the only reason this restriction was applied to churches in the first place was the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

ETA: who would you prefer "patrolling" the halls of the church your family attends, a cop who just rolled up from pulling an all night shift or a well rested, well vetted, well trained professional business man who knows the members of your church and has a vested interest in protecting those members? I think the answer is simple. Now we just need to stop neutering that individual.

It has to start with who is on the volunteer security team.

[mr1337]

6. Remove the fingerprint requirement for new and renewed CHLs;

Does anyone know if that would affect any reciprocity agreements?

[Charles L. Cotton]

6. Remove the fingerprint requirement for new and renewed CHLs;

Does anyone know if that would affect any reciprocity agreements?

I don't know about every state, but I don't believe it will. Most if not all states require a background check and the DPS already checks all available databases, including NICS. We gain nothing by spending $23.50 for every fingerprint submitted to the FBI.

Chas.

[74novaman]

#2 in the poll is fantastic and would be my top priority hands down.

I will say that getting open carry of handguns addressed would be nice just so the OCT crowd doesn't continue to cause us problems. The PR damage alone they're doing is pretty significant, IMO.

[BenGoodLuck]

# 2 states: "Repeal of all off-limits areas for Texas CHLs (excluding federal laws) [HB3218 in 2013]." I'm having a hard time understanding how people are ok repealing all off-limits areas but not repealing 30.06 entirely. I know we've been through this before, but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in that we're telling a hospital that it doesn't have a right to ban CHLs on its premises, but we can't do the same to all private property owners.

Why not have an option to remove the criminal penalties for violation of 30.06?

[Charles L. Cotton]

# 2 states: "Repeal of all off-limits areas for Texas CHLs (excluding federal laws) [HB3218 in 2013]." I'm having a hard time understanding how people are ok repealing all off-limits areas but not repealing 30.06 entirely. I know we've been through this before, but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in that we're telling a hospital that it doesn't have a right to ban CHLs on its premises, but we can't do the same to all private property owners.

Why not have an option to remove the criminal penalties for violation of 30.06?

Private hospitals will be able to use TPC §30.06 to ban armed CHLs. Only the statutory prohibition would be repealed. (The statutory prohibition is meaningless since notice under 30.06 is required to make the prohibition effective.)

TPC §30.06 cannot and will not be repealed, nor will it's penalties be removed. Only a very small number of people (none in the Legislature) would ever support denying private property owners of the ability to prevent armed CHLs from entering their property. The concept of forcing a property owner to first catch an armed CHL, then ask them to leave will never fly. Private property rights are revered in Texas almost as much as Second Amendment rights. As I've said before, I couldn't get any interest in preventing business property from using TPC §30.06, so there's no chance of anything like you are proposing passing.

Repealing TPC §30.06 would turn the clock back to pre Sept. 1, 1997 and that would be an absolute disaster!

Chas.

[Keith B]

I would like to see prohibited locations removed as well, but would be happy if the act was decriminalized unless you refuse to leave. Missouri prohibited locations are that way, and their 'No Concealed Handguns' signs are the same way. If you accidentally carry into a prohibited location, are discovered and refuse to leave, then you can be cited by a peace officer for trespass.

[booze97]

My Rep, Scott Turner, is running for Speaker. I sent him a letter asking for his take on the top issues on the list.