OK passes open carry & TSRA planning for Texas '11 session

[KC5AV]

They may have jumped the gun on the map, but a bill was recently sent to the TN governor that would allow restaurant carry with a prohibition against any consumption while carrying. I haven't heard whether the bill has been, or is likely to be signed.

[Keith B]

They may have jumped the gun on the map, but a bill was recently sent to the TN governor that would allow restaurant carry with a prohibition against any consumption while carrying. I haven't heard whether the bill has been, or is likely to be signed.

Bills are still going through the house and senate, so still off-limits. Even their Tennessee page outlining the gun laws says they are 'researching' off-limits locations. I am not sure how up-to-date their data even is across the board; apparently not very.

[SA-TX]

Unless I completely misread your post, your statement about Texas gun laws was much broader than just our CHL-related statutes. If I am correct, I would point out that your response addresses nothing but CHL-related laws and even those are either incorrect or very minor in nature. Texas is extremely gun-friendly.

Correct. See my preface below "I'm going to point out ...". Later I mention that some of the statues aren't specific to CHL -- they apply to all firearms -- but help to explain why I think that Texas "gun laws" are confusing and overly restrictive. Before I go any futher I want to make sure that my true point of view is captured: I agree that Texas and Texans are gun-friendly and this isn't a meant to be a 'bash Texas' post! I LOVE Texas. I simply want us to examine what other states are doing and make Texas law as good as it can be. Neither should this post be view as an attack upon you, Charles, or the TSRA. The laws were much worse before prior to CHL and have been getting better every session.

I'm going to point out where I think Texas is worse and also differences (where I'm not necessary saying we are worse, but that we should consider what others are doing).

1) Cost. Texas has one of the most expensive licenses in the country between DPS fees and the mandated training. Some states are as cheap as $20. Worse.

I haven't done a study nationwide so I can't comment on the maximum fee. However, there are 50% discounts offered to many people such as people over 60 years of age and anyone ever in the military (not just those who retired). Active military get it free. The renewal is only 50% of the original fee. A CHL paying the full rate will have an average cost of $21/year for the first 10 years,decreasing there after. This is probably higher than some states, but hardly cost prohibitive.

I agree that it isn't cost prohibitive but it is higher than most states. I did a quick survey based on the data at handgunlaw.us. Of the 5 year states, the average cost was $85 (original, not renewal). For the 4 year states, it was $38. Adjusting them to a 5 year # would make them cheaper than Texas, too.

2) Requirements.

SSN. .... Worse.

You are really stretching in your attempt to show Texas law is worse than other states.

I'll let the fact that a federal court thought it was against federal law speak for itself. I'm just pointing out that not all states require it.

Picture. Believe it or not, many states don't have pictures on their carry licenses. They find it unnecessary and it drives up cost. PA and IA don't, to name 2 that I know of. Might also speed up processing times. No opinion.

To my knowledge, all but a very few states require a photo. Photos are not oppressive nor do they run up the cost of a CHL more than a very few dollars. Plus, as of May 1st, renewals don't require a new photo and soon Texas residents won't have to submit photos even with an initial application.

I agree that it doesn't run up the cost that much. Again, I'm just pointing out where we in Texas have to take a step that many staes don't. Here's where I miss good ol http://www.packing.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They had pictures of licenses. Here's the way I remember it. I could be wrong on some of these and the laws might have changed but these licenses didn't have pictures: WA, CA (if you are fortunate enough to get one), MT, IA, IN, PA, VA, GA, RI. It also wouldn't surprise me if this was true for some of other really cheap fee states (SD, NH, ID).

3) Off-limits places. Professional/college/high school sporting events, bars, non-public police area (and that one was just added). Then there are those that technically aren't CHL-specific but are still unnecessary: polling place on election day, buildings in which there is a court or court office, race track, site of an execution, etc.

I'm not in favor of drinking and carrying but many states don't exclude bars (PA and IN are examples). Do they have drunken shoot-em ups? Not very often. Obviously there are other crimes when they do. Rather than off-limits places, why don't we criminalize behavior? If you use your gun in a bad way, no matter where you are, you face charges. The only truly off-limits places I think are reasonable are IN a courtroom, correctional facility, and the secured area of an airport. We could strip away all the other restrictions and we wouldn't have wild mayhem ensue. Worse.

The vast majority of states prohibit carrying in everyone of the locations you listed. In fact, the vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol and some prohibit carrying in any locations that sell alcohol even if it is not for on-premises consumption. Texas prohibits only carry in bars (51% locations).

While I suspect you are right about the "vast majority" prohibiting carrying in bars (but PA, IN, OH, NH do not, to name a few), I respectfully challenge the statement that the "vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol". I don't have time at the moment to try to determine the "restaurant carry" status of each state but that has improved recently (NM, AZ, VA and TN, although TN is still in litigation). I would say that Texas and the majority of carry states allow restaurant carry. With NM finally getting non-premises and restaurant carry fixed, I can't think of any shall-issue state that prohibits carry anywhere alcohol is present.

"Law Enforcement facilities" are very narrowly defined and even when a facility qualifies, it is not off-limits. CHL's can be disarmed and their handguns secured in mandatory lock-boxes, but they cannot be required to return to their cars to lock up their guns. Name the states that allow carrying in police stations? I suspect they are very few.

NH, for one (Ridley Report on Youtube). More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station? I, for one, have carried in the non-public area of a Dallas Police Department substation and all was just fine. My point is this: if someone uses their handgun in a dangerous/criminal way, arrest them under existing law. Why do we keep creating new no-carry zones? What problem does it address that can't be taken care of with existing law?

5) Officer ability to disarm. They are supposed to have a reasonable sense you are danger to yourself or someone else. In practice, "officer safety" seems to be good enough. Worse.

Every officer in Texas has the authority to disarm anyone they stop "for the officer's safety." Including this in the Texas CHL statute added nothing and did not create authority where none previously existed. It was a political move to garner necessary votes to pass the bill.

Perhaps we're using "officer safety" differently. I'm using it to mean a generic phrase that LEOs use without any individualized circumstances. That sounds different to me than what the law requires (again, SRothstein comes to mind) "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of ... ". I have no problem with a CHLer being disarmed when the officer has RAS that he isn't fully in command of his facilities (drunk, drugged, falling over tired, medical emergency, etc.) or a true officer safety situation (CHL is visibly hostile/agitated, argumentative, acting erratically, etc). What I oppose is a policy disarming as SOP. If that truly is permitted by Texas law then I suggest that it should change.

6) Reciprocity. ... ? Worse.

List the states that recognize every other states licenses. I suspect you will find that the majority of states don't recognize every state's license, especially since just under half of the states that have CHL statutes are "shall issue" states.

According to handgunlaw.us, these states recognize ALL licenses: AK, ID, UT, AZ, SD, OK, IA, MO, MI, IN, KY, TN. Did I say "majority"? I think 12 counts as many.

I'm confused by this your statement that "just under half of the states that have CHL statues are "shall issue" states." Handgunlaw.us classifies CA, MA, NY, CT, NJ, DE, MD, AL, and HI as having CHL statues and as "may issue", that's 9 of 48 (WI and IL having no CHL) meaning 39 are shall-issue (and AL appears to be shall-issue in all but name only) for a shall-issue/may-issue ratio of more than 4 to 1. Did I misunderstand?

7) Texas laws are way too confusing. Take the classic "church" example. Carrying here used to be off-limits and still appears to be but actually isn't because of (i). We seem to take the approach of sweeping prohibitions, outlawing the carrying of a handgun, then create many exemptions. Wouldn't we be better off if the law was cleaned up?

You claim our laws are way too confusing, but only list one example -- churches. You can add hospitals, nursing homes and meetings of governmental entities to the list, since the 30.06 sign required by TPC §46.035(i) applies to those locations as well. There is nothing confusing at all. In fact it's very clear; no sign - not off-limits.

And don't forget amusement parks. Yes, I used church as an one example that illustrates a broader theme. I could name more. The point is that (i) is fairly obscure. There have been many posts here and elsewhere trying to udnerstand "meetings of government entities" in light it the original prohibition, plus (i), plus the pre-emption of governmental units posting 30.06. Not all of us have that legal training so it seems very difficult to follow sometimes. We know the "court of court office" situation is interpreted differently depending on which government body you are talking to. I simply think that we could do a better job with some of these provisions. Rather than (i), why not just repeal the original prohibition? Those areas are then just like everywhere else; no 30.06 = carry on.

These are the ones that come to mind. I do appreciate you asking and I hope we'll work on these.

These are the ones that come to mind? I'm still waiting for something outside the CHL arena, as well as some within the CHL arena of substance. These are nothing more than nitpicking in an attempt to paint Texas as something other than a very gun-friendly state. This is yet another tactic commonly used by OC supporters; if a state doesn't allow OC, then it's not "gun-friendly."

Texas gun laws are very liberal, not perfect, there's certainly room for improvement, but the idea that many or most other states are more gun-friendly is erroneous.

Chas.

Wow. You really blasted me. I don't believe I said Texas was not "gun-friendly" nor did I ever say that any state that doesn't allow OC is not "gun friendly". In fact I don't think I mentioned OC in the entire post. Actually, my opinion is quite the opposite: Texas is so gun-friendly that I have a hard time believing OC would be a big deal.

I'll agree with you that the "idea that many or most other states are more gun-friendly is erroneous". I never made that claim, so I'm not sure on what basis it was made.

My contention was that Texas gun laws -- which I should enlarge to "weapons" since that's how PC 46 is titled -- are 1) confusing and 2) overly strict. I truly believe that we could get rid of most of 46.02, 46.03, and 46.035 and Texans would still be the same law-abiding bunch they are now.

One of these days when I have some time I'll post my model Penal Code Chapter 46. It will be much shorter I can tell you that.

SA-TX

[Conagher]

Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did.

In the end, open-carry deals with how Texans can carry defensive handguns; I'm far more concerned with empowering more people to carry in more places. In my view, that should be our priority.

Chas.

Hello Charles,

I do want you to know there are those of us that very much appreciate your contributions. Did you have the opportunity to review and comment on Representative Debbie Riddle's Open Carry bill she had drafted for last session? If not, would you be willing to extend your generocity in reviewing and offering suggestions to her draft bill? I know she as been a great asset to TSRA and our 2A rights.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

[chabouk]

I didn't go too far into the research, but can tell you the map is incorrect. It shows Tennessee as green and they do NOT have restaurant carry. Who knows how many other states have errors on them.

Here is the current situation in Tennessee, as I understand it:

1. The Tennessee legislature passed a restaurant carry bill.
2. The Tennessee governor vetoed it.
3. The Tennessee legislature overrode the veto.
4. Tennesseans briefly enjoyed legal carry in restaurants that serve alcohol.
5. A Tennessee court ruled the law too vague.
6. The law is still on the books, but is in curious legal limbo; the law says it's not illegal to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but one particular court say the law can't be enforced. Wait... what? The law doesn't proscribe anything, so it can't be "enforced" in the first place.
7. I'm not a follower of Tennessee legislation, so I might be out of date, but: I believe the same veto-proof majority is hard at work on a replacement bill that addresses the court's concerns.

[KD5NRH]

NH, for one (Ridley Report on Youtube). More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station? I, for one, have carried in the non-public area of a Dallas Police Department substation and all was just fine.

More to the point, I find this one largely irrelevant; I've been in the "secured area of a law enforcement facility" precisely twice in my life. In the last twelve years, I've only been inside a police station three times, and I suspect I'm a bit of an overachiever among people who aren't taken there against their will.

OTOH, I'm inside a college campus building at least once a month, and the only large meeting facility available locally is 51%. Those are the ones I want fixed.

As for the cost, I want to see better and faster service, or a dramatic reduction in the fees.

[Charles L. Cotton]

More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Hmmm. You would have thought that a) existing disarming authority would been sufficient and b) that they would never let someone into an area where their own officers disarm because of prisoner proximity without screening.

Where we really need the lockbox is at courthouses. PA has this requirement. That would make reporting for jury duty much easier. In Dallas if you want to take DART into downtown, you can carry on the train but once you get to the courthouse you are stuck.

SA-TX

[Charles L. Cotton]

More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Hmmm. You would have thought that a) existing disarming authority would been sufficient and b) that they would never let someone into an area where their own officers disarm because of prisoner proximity without screening.

Where we really need the lockbox is at courthouses. PA has this requirement. That would make reporting for jury duty much easier. In Dallas if you want to take DART into downtown, you can carry on the train but once you get to the courthouse you are stuck.

SA-TX

You asked why the provision was added; that's why. Procedures vary greatly depending on the size of the department, number of personnel, building layout, etc.

Chas.

[G.A. Heath]

I have tried to avoid this topic but I feel a need to chime in. Open Carry is a right that we need to get restored, no one in their right mind will argue against it if they support the right to keep and bear arms. The biggest argument I am seeing right now is about how, when, and who. The TSRA, as I understand it, has two problems pushing for open carry:
1: Limited political capital.
2: lack of interest in the membership.

Addressing the first issue: If you only have a dollar you can only buy one dollar's worth of stuff so its usually not wise to buy a lottery ticket so you can try to win enough money to buy two hundred dollars worth of stuff. The same applies to political capital, There is legislation that the TSRA can work to get passed that will further our rights, so why should they waste political capital on something they can't afford at this time?

Regarding the Second issue: If your membership has a lack of interest in something then you probably shouldn't touch it or they will remove you and/or leave your organization.

The solution to both problems is the same: if you really want to see the TSRA push for open carry then join up and get everyone you know who shares your opinion to do so. Once your a member you can let them know what you want, how you want it, and most importantly why you want it. The more membership an organization has, the more political capital it has that it can use on its goals. I assure you that a group with ten members has less political capital than a group with ten thousand members.

If you want open carry passed and don't particularly care if TSRA is involved then start a group to push for it. But please do so in a polite, honest, and forward thinking manner. Remember that we want to gain rights, not loose or trade ones we already have.

[quidni]

Something I'd like to see is a provision that prohibits state agencies from disarming employees who are carrying under a state-issued permit. Right now, the state of Texas says I can carry, but my employer, which is an agency of the state of Texas, says I can't.

Texas already says that counties/municipalities may not ban what the state specifically permits. So why can state agencies get away with it?

(and if state employees regain the right to carry at work under authority of CHL, hopefully the private sector will follow...)

I'm dreaming, I know....

[TLE2]

Parking lot and campus carry are too important to be bogged down by open carry, IMHO.

[joe817]

Parking lot and campus carry are too important to be bogged down by open carry, IMHO.

OC might best be saved for future legislative sessions....but not this next one coming up.

Parking lot & campus carry should be the major focus this go around.

[Conagher]

Parking lot and campus carry are too important to be bogged down by open carry, IMHO.

OC might best be saved for future legislative sessions....but not this next one coming up.

Parking lot & campus carry should be the major focus this go around.

Hello Gentlemen,

I understand and appreciate your perspective. However, let me assure you Texas Open Carry will be pursued for the 2011 legislative session. This should not even be a question in anyone’s mind. As a matter of fact it is already being pursued through letters, emails, and phone calls being made to Texas legislators prompted by the success of the OK OC effort. IMHO our best chance to ensure coherency with the parking lot and campus carry effort as well as the administration of priority, political clout, etc. is for us (TSRA) to manage the Texas OC effort. Activities to date, have not, and will not make this issue disappear. It is impractical thinking to believe otherwise. I believe the best way to management this effort is to take control of it and we (TSRA) have that opportunity. Knowing the risks of having this proceed un-managed by us, and it will; I question our legitimacy to complain of the consequences if we choose inaction.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day

[frazzled]

Parking lot and campus carry are too important to be bogged down by open carry, IMHO.

OC might best be saved for future legislative sessions....but not this next one coming up.

Parking lot & campus carry should be the major focus this go around.

Hello Gentlemen,

I understand and appreciate your perspective. However, let me assure you Texas Open Carry will be pursued for the 2011 legislative session. This should not even be a question in anyone’s mind. As a matter of fact it is already being pursued through letters, emails, and phone calls being made to Texas legislators prompted by the success of the OK OC effort. IMHO our best chance to ensure coherency with the parking lot and campus carry effort as well as the administration of priority, political clout, etc. is for us (TSRA) to manage the Texas OC effort. Activities to date, have not, and will not make this issue disappear. It is impractical thinking to believe otherwise. I believe the best way to management this effort is to take control of it and we (TSRA) have that opportunity. Knowing the risks of having this proceed un-managed by us, and it will; I question our legitimacy to complain of the consequences if we choose inaction.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day

Really, you think emails mean something. Ok.
You think after you burned the poiticans anyone's going to carry your water?