Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry

[steveincowtown]

1. We do not have a super majority in the Senate. That's why we had to change Senate rules to allow bills to reach the floor for debate with only 19 votes.

You would surely know more about this than me, but didn't changing the rule in affect make it a super majority?

2. Party Platforms don't matter in the least; they are routinely ignored. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Agreed on all points.

3. Unlicensed carry will not pass in 2017. Spending one dime of political capital on it would hurt the effort to promote bills that can pass. It will be interesting to see if any of the open-carry organizations even try next session.

You are in the mix, I am not. I'll take your word.

4. Rendering 30.06/30.07 signs is neither desirable nor possible. Private property rights folks, most of whom are also strong Second Amendment supporters, would oppose it in huge numbers. Forcing property owners to confront people carrying handguns rather than allowing them to post enforceable signs is a concept that very few people support.

I strongly disagree.

#1> Private business give up certain rights when they are open to the public. I have a book of city and state codes that prove it.

#2> I cannot find one case in any open carry state where someone went haywire when they were asked to leave. In addition, I feel that implying that this could be a problem discounts the stellar record of LTC holders.

#3> I won't post it again, but there are many, many states where signs have no force of law. It hasn't been a problem in these states, and like most Texans I just think we are better than them!

5. Removing the duty to disclose your LTC to a LEO was overwhelmingly opposed in 2009 and that's why we removed all penalties by adding that language to the DPS sunset bill.

Chas.

I personally do not have a problem with disclosing, and will continue to do it whether it is the law or not. 20% due to the fact I have great respect for LEO's and 80% due to the fact I would prefer not to accidentally get shot on the side of the road over an avoidable misunderstanding. That being said, forcing LTCers to disclose is just another law that penalizes the law abiding citizens. Much like a 30.06/30.07 sign won't keep a criminal from carrying a gun past it, forcing law abiding citizens to disclose they are carrying does nothing to protect officers against criminals.


I understand the desire to reduce off limit areas, but I am quite pessimistic about it. Didn't we clarify the public area where LTCers could carry last session, and even added penalties? Yet many cities and counties have thumbed their nose note only the TXLeg but the AG as well? What makes anyone think they all the sudden a new law will keep people from continue to post unenforceable 30.06/30/07 signs?

IMHO, the real answer is to both take the teeth out of 30.06/30.07 AND expand areas where we can carry. This way once the areas we can carry are expanded, even if city/counties/etc. post 30.06/30.07 we would be risking a small (let say $25 Class C). This would also allow some cases to go to court and set some much needed precedent.

[GeekwithaGun]

I agree with Steveincowtown on all points.

On Steve's point #3, I just returned from spending about 10 days in Michigan and CC'd the whole time. Signs have no force of law and very little prohibited places (very similar to Texas except places of worship and casino's). I saw zero signs where were went and we basically made a loop of the entire state (lower) and half the Upper Peninsula, did the tourist things like museum and boat tour of Painted Rocks cliffs on Lake Superior. Had no issues.

I would support and lobby for off limit places be removed for LTC holders wherever LEO's on or off duty can carry.

[Charles L. Cotton]

4. Rendering 30.06/30.07 signs is neither desirable nor possible. Private property rights folks, most of whom are also strong Second Amendment supporters, would oppose it in huge numbers. Forcing property owners to confront people carrying handguns rather than allowing them to post enforceable signs is a concept that very few people support.

I'd like to see some of the teeth taken out of 30.06/07... Maybe one of these would work?

1. Make violations an infraction. A $25 ticket, or something similar. Maybe make that applicable to 30.06 only and leave 30.07 as is. Leave the trespass after being asked to leave stuff as-is also.?

2. Tennessee did this.... Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety

3. ??

The problem with trying to change 30.06/30.07 further is that, the argument would essentially be "change the law so I can ignore a property owner's wishes and carry my gun anyway." We can play word games, but that's the argument and it will find very little support even among gun owners.

We were able to lower the offense to a Class C to prevent a more serious penalty for people who honestly missed a 30.06 or 30.07 sign. If they leave when asked to leave, that fact tends to support the argument that entry was by mistake. If they refuse to leave, then it's a Class A Misdemeanor.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

For whatever my opinion is worth, Constitutional Carry is the end goal, but I think that taking care of prohibited places is more important right now...... .....and I think it is the easier sell. It took a LOT of capital to get OC passed. My guess is that it took nearly as much as getting CHL passed in the first place. Taking on that big of a bite in two consecutive sessions may be less than wise. And frankly, while I'd like to see Constitutional Carry pass, I think that now that we already have OC, doing something about prohibited places will have a bigger impact on the lives of people who are already licensed than either it OR Constitutional Carry will have on the lives of people who have chosen at this point to not get a license to carry a firearm.

[jason812]

My 2 pennies that are probably only worth 1:

Keep 30.07 get rid of 30.06 and statutory off limits. Out of sight, out of mind.

[steveincowtown]

I think that now that we already have OC, doing something about prohibited places will have a bigger impact on the lives of people who are already licensed than either it OR Constitutional Carry will have on the lives of people who have chosen at this point to not get a license to carry a firearm.

TAM, although I agree with most all of your 10,000+ post I have to take exception here. The reason so called Constitutional Carry is so important is because of all the folks who simply can't "choose" to get a license. I have a personal friend who wants her LTC. She is qualified, she simply does not have the money to do it. I offered to pay for it, and she simply doesn't have the time.

She is a single mother, broke up with a nutcase, and he has threaten to kill her. Why should money or time be a barrier in restricting her God given right to defend herself?

She is a Saint, a beautiful person, and yet can only sleep with a gun under her pillow and not carry it on her person right now.

I get it. Paying for an LTC wasn't a big deal for me. Probaly wasn't for you either. I own a great collection of guns that is probaly equal to what you forgot you have bought.

The Second Ammendment should not come with a price tag, none of the others do.

[rtschl]

Since this thread is about political capital... OC took all the oxygen out of the room last session so I don't want to waste any effort on unlicensed carry this next session. Let's first get the off limits area reduced. I don't like it having to be done incrementally but that is political reality.

In a building/property that is open to the public I too would like to see no penalty except for refusing to leave. But we do not have the votes. So lets work on other priorities first.

[mojo84]

I think it comes down to priorities. We all have to make decisions about our priorities and where we chose to invest our time and money. Many people that claim they can't afford the time or money just chose to prioritize other things over getting their LTC.

While I agree unlicensed carry is the ultimate goal, I disagree the barrier to obtaining an LTC is too high. Just as to those that claim they don't have the resources to get a state issued ID, I say malarkey. I've led Dave Ramsey Financial Peace University classes for several years. I found only A couple of situations where the person couldn't realign their priorities and better allocate their money. If one's life is genuinely at risk, getting an LTC is not insurmountable for the large majority.

Now, whether or not a license should be required is a whole different argument. So is whether or not we expend our political capital going for gold or be happy with the silver for now.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think that now that we already have OC, doing something about prohibited places will have a bigger impact on the lives of people who are already licensed than either it OR Constitutional Carry will have on the lives of people who have chosen at this point to not get a license to carry a firearm.

TAM, although I agree with most all of your 10,000+ post I have to take exception here. The reason so called Constitutional Carry is so important is because of all the folks who simply can't "choose" to get a license. I have a personal friend who wants her LTC. She is qualified, she simply does not have the money to do it. I offered to pay for it, and she simply doesn't have the time.

She is a single mother, broke up with a nutcase, and he has threaten to kill her. Why should money or time be a barrier in restricting her God given right to defend herself?

She is a Saint, a beautiful person, and yet can only sleep with a gun under her pillow and not carry it on her person right now.

I get it. Paying for an LTC wasn't a big deal for me. Probaly wasn't for you either. I own a great collection of guns that is probaly equal to what you forgot you have bought.

The Second Ammendment should not come with a price tag, none of the others do.

Steve, I agree that it should not come with a price tag. But it doesn't happen in a vacuum, so there is a price, and that price is measured in "dollars" of political capital. Is Constitutional Carry so important that you're willing to risk (A) not getting anything pro-gun passed in this coming session if Constitutional Carry doesn't pass; and (B) not getting anything pro-gun passed for the next several sessions? I honestly do not mean to sound like a cad about your friend by diminishing her plight, but remember that she can also carry a firearm on her person between her front door and her vehicle, in her vehicle on the way to work, and between her vehicle and work entrance if her place of work permits firearms. I would also add, if you are willing to pay for her class, and she wants badly enough to carry a gun, she'll make the time to take the class. Is she a single mom? How about offering to not only pay for her class, but watch her kids for her while she's at the class? Does she work 7 days a week? Surely, it is possible for her to find enough time to take the class if she wants it badly enough, and especially if you are willing to help her by paying for it.

So yeah, the 2nd Amendment shouldn't have a price placed on it, but the reality of the situation is that, for now, in Texas, it does have a price......and it is steep enough that trying to pass Constitutional Carry could derail other important legislation, and it could still fail to pass. I don't know if that's worth the attempt at this stage of things.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's not a matter of whether a license should be required to carry a gun. The question is what can get passed in 2017; unlicensed carry cannot. Therefore, we work on what can pass.

Chas.

[EastTexasRancher]

I would like to see a law passed like they did in Tennessee where a businesses can be sued if someone is hurt/killed in a "gun free" zone.

It's my opinion that if the business takes away my right to defend myself, then they're assuming that responsibility. And if they fail to do so, they can be held liable. And that should include employers!!!!!!!

[CleverNickname]

It's my opinion that if the business takes away my right to defend myself, then they're assuming that responsibility. And if they fail to do so, they can be held liable. And that should include employers!!!!!!!

I agree, if you're forced to go on property where it's illegal for you to carry, then the owner of the property should assume liability.

However, you're not forced to work at any particular place, nor are you forced to frequent any particular business. So I guess the only place that would assume liability under such a law would be a city or county who called you to jury duty, forcing you to enter a court unarmed.

[Jusme]

I think that now that we already have OC, doing something about prohibited places will have a bigger impact on the lives of people who are already licensed than either it OR Constitutional Carry will have on the lives of people who have chosen at this point to not get a license to carry a firearm.

TAM, although I agree with most all of your 10,000+ post I have to take exception here. The reason so called Constitutional Carry is so important is because of all the folks who simply can't "choose" to get a license. I have a personal friend who wants her LTC. She is qualified, she simply does not have the money to do it. I offered to pay for it, and she simply doesn't have the time.

She is a single mother, broke up with a nutcase, and he has threaten to kill her. Why should money or time be a barrier in restricting her God given right to defend herself?

She is a Saint, a beautiful person, and yet can only sleep with a gun under her pillow and not carry it on her person right now.

I get it. Paying for an LTC wasn't a big deal for me. Probaly wasn't for you either. I own a great collection of guns that is probaly equal to what you forgot you have bought.

The Second Ammendment should not come with a price tag, none of the others do.

I too wish that there was a way that we could all carry all the time without the time and money required. But as TAM stated, where there's a will, there's a way. I'm sure several of us will be happy to donate to LTC classes, ammo, childcare costs, and licensing fees. There was thread on here about LTC classes held during the week, and there's a local one near me that have Sunday classes. Let your friend know that we are a community, and will help in any way we can.
I think Charles has a much better feel for the political climate in the Texas Legislature, so I will defer to his thoughts regarding trying to push for Constitutional Carry. If we aim too high and miss, future favorable legislation could be much harder to have sympathetic ears.

[SewTexas]

John Lott has done several studies relating the number of concealed carry holders with cost and ease of obtaining a permit. I'd like to see a priority on increasing the law abiding armed population of Texas by simplifying and reducing the cost of permits.

Senator Huffman (State Affairs chairwoman) has already voiced support for reducing the LTC fees. Currently, it generates revenue for the state. She knows that it should not.

I've been wondering, what was the justification for the expensive application fee for the CHL/LTC?

it's not expensive compared to some other states. the justification for the fee is that that department is suppose to pay for itself.