A disappointing State Fair episode 10-1-09

[karl]

The civilian did say several times that it was shredded at the end of each day.

I'm willing to bet everyone's cooperation here helped bring about that response, good job all, making a little bit of headway.

[C-dub]

Well, it sounds like we've a new goal the next legislative session. If we can't get this resolved before then we need to get this better defined in the law.

[numist]

I thought about what the police officer said about this being private property. I remember talking with him about that before the 'record-taker' showed up. He was convinced even though I told him that it was owned by the city of Dallas and was recognized by the Dallas Central Appraisal District as such : http://www.dallascad.org/AcctHistory.as ... C0001A0000" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm sure he actually believed what someone told him and wish there could have been a way to show him the truth.

[joe817]

Well, it sounds like we've a new goal the next legislative session. If we can't get this resolved before then we need to get this better defined in the law.

I totally agree. This abuse of so called "policy" cannot continue. The State Fair of Texas is NOT a local or city, or even regional event. It is a State event, that invites participants all over our great State to participate in everything from horse shows, cattle shows..indeed every type of livestock show. Not to mention exhibitions and contests where participants from all over the State compete. The baking exhibits at the Women's Exhibit, to the Livestock Exhibition.

The security official that said "the state fair is an amusement park", is an outrageous insult to my heritage, my beliefs in this great State, and my fervent conviction that the State Fair is a statewide Institution ingrained into the hearts of every Texan, steeped in history and tradition. I am truly incensed over this callous remark.

This Fair is for EVERY citizen of the State of Texas. As such, these infractions on our sensitive CHL information effects EVERY CHL holder in the State. And the precedents that the Fair officials are presenting to us is unacceptable, and action must be taken to preserve the integrity of the CHL itself. If the Fair officials prevail in their efforts to gather sensitive information about you and I, I ask you, where will it end? At the movies? At the restaurants? At the department stores?
Of course those things are over the top. But if that precedent is left standing, I submit to you other organizations will adopt a similar "policy".

This is not to be taken lightly folks. Our rights are being compromised, and we simply cannot allow this to continue.

In my opinion, we need to stand up and be counted, and voice our concern to whom ever will listen, and at the ballot box.

I am not an original thinker, but I can extrapolate a chain of events that impact a certain segment of society negatively. And that segment is us.

Tell me....anyone....what can I do to help?

[Nintao]

I am glad my brother (who frequents this site more than I), linked me this thread as I will be attending the Fair with other friends Sunday the 11th. Thank you to everyone for their efforts in this matter.

So they "shred" the info at the end of the day??? Now what happens when they find that "rogue gun" that got lost days later? Or the "incident" they are so worried about is not reported or discovered till days later?? Sigh! Common Sense must not be required to work the Fair!

[Nintao]

To heck with checking CHL holders... they should get the info for all registered pedophiles and sex offenders! I am sure there have been reports of unwanted behavior in that category(unfortunately)!

[killerfly128]

I believe there's a good chance Jon David Wells may be commenting on this very topic this afternoon.
KLIF 570.

JD has an email on the matter. I also sent you a PM.

[C-dub]

To heck with checking CHL holders... they should get the info for all registered pedophiles and sex offenders! I am sure there have been reports of unwanted behavior in that category(unfortunately)!

This is why several hundred heads are better than just a few. I hadn't even considered this. They probably haven't even considered this and if they have they probably decided they couldn't legally collect this information. Oh the irony. ARGH!!!

[blue]

So... they Do Not collect information from:

sex offenders
felons on parole
Illegal Aliens
gangbangers
etc.

????????WHY ARE THEY SO DARN DETERMINED TO COLLECT INFO ON CHL HOLDERS ??????????

(THE PHONY EXCUSES DON'T FLY!)

WHY IS TEXAS/DALLAS/DPS ALLOWING THEM TO POKE THEIR NOSE INTO POLICE BUSINESS ?????????

The privacy of CHL info is Clearly shown in that -DPS IS LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED TO RELEASE THAT INFO!

** The Dallas Police are Witnessing, and ACCOMPLICES!, in allowing the information to be Collected by a Non Governmental third party**

[srothstein]

So using that logic, the Cinemark Theater where I went last weekend can start demanding my CHL and recording my information; the restaurant where I ate that night can start doing the same....they're both "private property"

Yes, they both can do so right now and you would have the same option there as at the state fair. Say no and leave the property or comply. There is no law forbidding their doing so, and being real private property (as opposed to the state fair being on government owned property), they have an even stronger claim on what they can do by policy.

There is an obvious fallacy in the logic of the people who claim that they will only show their CHL to a police officer. The State Fair is the perfect example of why. They cannot post 30.06, but can bar anyone not licensed from entering while armed and are using metal detectors. They do not need to haev peace officers at every gate (I know they do, but there is no requirement for it). The security guards could legally and properly deny you entry for refusing to show them you CHL.

The collecting of information is wrong and possibly dangerous to you. As far as I can tell, it is legal as of this point in time. I don't like the compromise of collecting it with their word on shredding it (I don't trust them any further than they trust me - trust must work both ways). I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.

[austin-tatious]

I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.

That will be the tricky part. In the good 'ol days when we wrote checks for almost everything we had to show our driver's license and the number was recorded on the check. Those who refused to have it recorded were denied the purchase. That is denying a benefit is it not? But, like you pointed out, a private business on it's own property can require a lot of things that a private business leasing a public park should not be able to.

[der Teufel]

The collecting of information is wrong and possibly dangerous to you. As far as I can tell, it is legal as of this point in time. I don't like the compromise of collecting it with their word on shredding it (I don't trust them any further than they trust me - trust must work both ways). I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.

I like the sound of this, but there are many occasions where, when cashing a check, I'm required to show my driver's license, and the number is written on the check. Mostly these days I use credit cards, but I've seen times when my physical description (eye color, height) as well as other license details (expiration date, address) have been copied. Perhaps we should stick to the CHL license issues. Trying to go too broad might weaken the chances for successful change.

[blue]

A CHL is NOT a DL.

(Different rules-PRIVATE. As in none of their business - L.E.O. Only!).

[srothstein]

I stand corrected and forgot all about people writing down DL's. I guess I moved too far into the modern age of carrying a debit card instead of my checkbook.

But some type of law is the only answer. It might be just the CHL, or it could be the broad ban I suggested, maybe with a few exceptions.

In a private answer to another poster, I suggested modifying the current ban in Transportation Code 521.126.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#521.126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It currently bans the collection of data from the magnetic stripe, and has some valid exceptions listed. If we added the CHL, took of the limit on electronically readable data, and then we added the acceptable exceptions (such as EMS in an emergency, the ID/DL number when presented, or consent of the owner) it might be workable.

And I am sure Charles and the TSRA people are better at working with the legislature on exactly what would be workable than I am. I think some type of law is going to be the answer though.

[Dragonfighter]

So using that logic, the Cinemark Theater where I went last weekend can start demanding my CHL and recording my information; the restaurant where I ate that night can start doing the same....they're both "private property"

Yes, they both can do so right now and you would have the same option there as at the state fair. Say no and leave the property or comply. There is no law forbidding their doing so, and being real private property (as opposed to the state fair being on government owned property), they have an even stronger claim on what they can do by policy.

A private property owner can post, under authority of PC 30.06. IF it is discovered I am carrying in violation of PC 30.06 I can be charged with criminal trespass. They can also, as a private property owner deny me entry or compel me to leave for any reason. There are some limitations based on protected classes for property owners that otherwise allow public access. CHL is not a protected class.

Even the law follows logic to some extent. The law narrowly defines who, and under what circumstances a credential can be demanded, anything else exceeds the authority of that law . Now at my house I can say explicitly who can enter and under what circumstances. If I otherwise allow public access, the law allows me to post 30.06 signage, provide effective notice orally or in writing (presumably if I discover someone is carrying against my policy) but it does not authorize me to force a public declaration of my CHL status or whether or not I am armed. If I make a policy forbidding all weapons, then I would as a matter of course set up controlled entrance.

Access to public (government owned) facilities is just that, public. The law (Yes PC 30.06) defines that a CHL holder cannot be denied entry to a premise owned or leased by a government entity. Adding policies that predicate my entry to that property supersedes the authority of law. The collection, retention and dissemination of private information on CHL holders is again, narrowly defined. The DPS is the only agency authorized to collect this information and except for a few exceptions must protect the privacy of that information.

There is an obvious fallacy in the logic of the people who claim that they will only show their CHL to a police officer. The State Fair is the perfect example of why. They cannot post 30.06, but can bar anyone not licensed from entering while armed and are using metal detectors. They do not need to haev peace officers at every gate (I know they do, but there is no requirement for it). The security guards could legally and properly deny you entry for refusing to show them you CHL.

Can you cite the relevant law please, I have failed to find it. What I have found is that in the case of amusement parks, they are either posted and/or have all entrances controlled by metal detectors and have law enforcement officers on location. If they are posted they have to have controlled entry, but if they have controlled entry it serves as effective notice under PC 30.06(a previous AG opinion I believe).

The security guards at the fair have no authority (and I've worked similar positions) to deny entry beyond what the law allows. They have no authority to determine whether or not you are "legally" carrying your weapon. They do upon discovery of a weapon have the authority to involve police (which by coincidence are handy). Submission to wanding and/or display of a CHL is a concession on the part of the public. That is why private security does the wanding, as opposed to LEO, it would be unwarranted search of a person otherwise.

The collecting of information is wrong and possibly dangerous to you. As far as I can tell, it is legal as of this point in time.

I must disagree, the collection, storage use and dissemination of any private information by any organization, public or private, is closely regulated at state and federal levels. Any use of gathered personal information, including use and security of that information is to be published or is subject to audit by state and federal authorities. That is why the AG's CPD is looking into this and why I have filed complaints with senators Hutchison and Cornyn.

Further, the collection, storage and dissemination of CHL information is reserved for the DPS and is further restricted in how they use it. So specifically collecting CHL information if you are not DPS is not legal, especially if the submission of that information determines if I will be allowed access to a public property or not. They can say "We would like your information, pretty please," until they are blue in the face, but to restrict my access to a public (government owned) premise exceeds any reasonable extrapolation of their authority. Thus a complaint has been filed with the DPS PSB.

I don't like the compromise of collecting it with their word on shredding it (I don't trust them any further than they trust me - trust must work both ways). I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.

The law on collection of information is pretty succinct as it is, it just needs to be honored. A couple of last thoughts, I remember before CHLs and a couple of years following, no wanders of any kind were at the gates. That demonstrates that the local gang banger doesn't worry them, just the law abiding licensed CCW.

Also as I have mentioned before, this policy forces (I don't care if it is a LEO collecting the information) a public declaration of me being armed, this can be construed a either failure to conceal or carrying in a manner intent on inciting panic.

It is Draconian and dangerous and needs to stop...now.