Well, he should have it by now. So, blue is his letter and everything else is my injected comments.
Mr Alcorn,
The last email from you was a complete and very pleasant surprise. In my experience, cities rarely seek to review their policies without some compulsion to do so. I could not be more encouraged in the civil process than I am now. To properly address the requested input I would like to first offer a little ideological background and then I'll simply endeavor to answer your specific points by injecting my answers between the paragraphs. This will help keep me on task and hopefully be easier to associate the answers with the particular points.
I am a believer in what has become known in the vernacular as "constitutional carry". That is, I believe the second amendment of the Bill of Rights is simple and straight forward. I believe that any gun control measures that have been enacted beyond restricting ownership of firearms by felons, liberty removed by due process of law consistent with the fifth amendment, is an infringement.
In light of this , I view even concealed handgun licenses being required for law abiding citizens to "bear arms" as an infringement. With that, the residents of Texas are closer to applying their natural right to self defense as enumerated in the constitution than many others in this country. This is generally without fear of official oppression. In fact, if you were to speak with any number of CHL holders who have encountered law enforcement officers, the overwhelming majority would report nothing but courtesy and respect. There are occasional and glaring exceptions of course, but these are very rare.
> Mr. Dragonfighter....<SNIP> I understand that part of the rights and obligatons of a permit involves keeping the firearm concealed, and that nobody in the facility may ever realize you have a license and a weapon, but that you want to do the right thing and not be in violation of a policy, even if you believe that is it incorrect.
My personal situation has always been that, prior to the CHL, there were very few occasions when I could not carry a weapon without having a "defense to prosecution". If a law enforcement officer HAD decided to arrest me at some point, I most likely would not have been convicted and probably not prosecuted. However that could have been a financially ruinous event. The CHL law is the first affirmative carry law in Texas since reconstruction. I have held a CHL since the law was first enacted in 1995.
When the CHL law was first enacted, the qualifications were more stringent than today and numerous places were prohibited to CHL carry. Many of these places were the very types that one reads about in instances of mass shootings. Many individuals and organizations have spent countless hours and money working to bring the qualifications closer to those consistent with federal requirements for gun ownership which minimizes the need for an extraordinary record. They have worked tirelessly, sometimes risking professional or political consequence, to expand the areas and circumstances in which a CHL holder may carry.
Yes, we (CHL holders) want to do "the right thing" even if we disagree with a policy. That drives many of us to write letters and be diligent in watching federal, state and local governments. We become active in the legislative process and chose reason as our weapon of choice in affecting change where these policies are in violation of state law. That doing "the right thing" is why I started this process as opposed to choosing an adversarial (I.E. force the issue) course of action.
> A concern in any policy is that we must weigh the benefit or danger to the majority of the crowd against the rights of those that may be smaller in number.
This simple statement has profound implications, allow me to address these first. Setting the practical reality of existing infringements aside for a moment, rights are not a privilege granted by agreement, covenant or by consent of the government. Rights are endowed by our creator (or natural law if you prefer). They are not negotiable and in our constitutional republic can only be removed by due process of law. What if a person's speech involved language ( let's preclude profanity, threatening and inflammatory language) that the majority of the crowd did not benefit from or was deemed dangerous, say to the status quo? Must we weigh the majority's concerns against the rights of those that may be smaller in number? Do we then force this person to be silent? Maybe he should be prosecuted? Using this logical extreme demonstrates the fallacy of this argument, at least in a free country.
Now I would like to address the "danger" aspect of the statement. I cannot speak for all CHL holders, just those that I have known and myself. As you well know a CHL holder must:
1. Be 21 years old. (Members and former members of the armed forces must be 18.)
2. Have a clean criminal history, including military service and recent juvenile records.
3. Not be under a protective order.
4. Not be chemically dependent.
5. Not be of unsound mind.
6. Not be delinquent in paying fines, fees, child support, etc.
7. Be eligible to purchase a handgun by completing the NICS check.
8. Complete required training. A minimum of 10 hours classroom and then pass a written exam covering firearms laws, deadly force statutes as well as dispute deescalation; then they must pass a practical shooting test. My first class was 12 1/2 hours of classroom training.
By the way, a candidate for peace officer in the state of Texas need not meet #6 though they may find it tough to retain employment if they do not. It is a demonstrated fact that felons can have their records expunged so that a department can meet hiring requirements; a candidate for a CHL is out of luck however . I have personal knowledge of this occurring.
So we have a completely law abiding, mentally stable and financially responsible citizen. He or she has been trained and knows the laws concerning lawful carry, self defense and deadly force. At least half of their time in class (barring aberrant instructors) is spent on avoiding and defusing disputes before they turn violent. Now, what of the person themselves. In my experience and without exception amongst those I know, the CHL holder practices (more than the majority of law enforcement officers I know) to be proficient and safe in the handling and employment of their weapon. They do not frequent trouble spots, they are always aware of their surroundings so as not to wander into trouble in the first place, and they know the only sure way to win a fight is to not be in one. They view their weapon as an absolute last resort to protect themselves and their loved ones; they are not cop wannabes and they abhor the thought of firing their weapon at another human being. We are talking about a well trained, law abiding and stable personality concerned with their personal safety and those around them. So the argument of danger to the crowd becomes a non-starter.
Benefit? Consider every instance of violence against multiple people you can think of (VT, New Life Church, Westwood Baptist, Westroads Mall, Luby's, Ft. Hood, etc.). Only two things ever stopped these attackers, being shot by by a defender or suicide. All CHL holders I know will defend their loved ones at all costs, many would consider entering into the defense of a third party if doing so would not expose their families to additional danger. A direct byproduct of defending oneself or family in case of an active shooter is protecting untold numbers of potential victims that are also present.
> We do in fact own the facility and the ground on which it is situated, but we do not operate the facility. We have not in the past considered this policy as we have considered the policy regarding our governmental office, park, and other facilities. We are checking with other cities that have facilities operated by others, and reviewing their policies. If you are aware of the policies in other locations in other cities, please let us know.
Let's start here:
Penal Code Sec. 30.06.
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the license holder carries a handgun is owned OR leased by a governmental entity and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035 (professional sporting events, secured areas of airports, court offices, etc.). em. added.
So whether the government entity owns or leases the property, the property is not subject to PC 30.06 and the section cannot be legally enforced. There are some exceptions where carry by a CHL holder is prohibited by statute (Lone Star Park next door for example).
Then there is the preemption law:
Local Government Code Sec. 229.001.
FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to: <SNIP>
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity. (em. added}
You asked for examples of policies at facilities in other cities. A prime example of a policy that had to be changed is the State Fair of Texas.
Fair Park is physically owned by the city of Dallas, it is leased by The State Fair of Texas which is a not for profit that organizes and puts on the fair every year. Now Fair Park is in a high crime area and assaults (aggravated and criminal), robberies and even the occasional homicide were not uncommon prior to the CHL law. Once enacted the crime rate dropped off noticeably during the fair over the next several years. After 9-11 security with wands was hired and they tried to prevent weapons from entering. That very first year there was a shooting in the middle of the Midway where a female was hit in the lower back/hip area. The spin at the time was that the shot had to come from outside which begs the question of how such a projectile could cross into the fairgrounds, missing buildings and thousands of evening visitors, during the most crowded hours only to strike a female low in the body at a low angle of entry. I have personal and detailed knowledge of this call and the specifics of the wound. Assaults on fair goers in the parking lots and driving out of the area began to creep back upward.
Texas passes the amendment to PC 30.06 and the police say officially that "if discovered" the bearer would be asked to return the weapon to their vehicle. There was no "or ifs" (consequences) offered. Many of those that I know, told me privately they would not enforce this policy. I never heard of any being discovered though I am aware of several who carried. This indicates the quality of entry screening. Violent crime rates during the fair took a small dip. A huge letter writing campaign changed the policy to "allow " CHL holders entry.
The next year it was policy that at the screening, simply show the CHL to the wander at the time. This borders on the illegal because the only one who can demand ID display of a CHL bearer is a law enforcement officer and the only agency that can collect and maintain information on licensees is the Texas Department of Public Safety. Some wrote letters of complaint, many grumbled but complied because there was little delay and no personal information was taken.
The next year the private security company began to attempt collection of personal information from every CHL holder that entered the fair. They could not or would not account for what purpose the information was being used or how it was to be secured. This is an instance where complying with a policy is the "wrong thing" as now one is complicit in an illegal action. Many were openly derided and harassed and or "refused" entry when they would not surrender their information. Suffice it to say a torrent of letters were written to the State Fair, the city, the AG and DPS.
The next year, the security supervisors were stationed at the gate and though deliberately polite, they still attempted to gather information from CHL entrants. Though the intimidation was still there those that I know that refused, citing the illegality of the demand, were sometimes escorted to the DPD officer at the gate who then let them enter or were simply allowed in over the grumbling of the supervisor. More letters, this time DPS took a direct interest in the illegal acts by the security contractors and launched an investigation.
The following year and since, all a CHL holder needs do is inform the wander that they have a CHL. They are then escorted to or asked to see the DPD officer at the gate which checks the credentials before sending you off to your day at the fair. This was most definitely an adversarial process and was expensive to the city of Dallas (city legal), the security contractor (in citations and fines) and the State Fair of Texas in lost revenues.
The American Airlines Center does not publish there policy online. Obviously carry at a sports event is prohibited by law. I have been there for exactly three other non-sports events and though they have security with wands there, I have never been given any trouble or asked to display credentials.
There are no prohibitions toward carrying in Dallas city hall, museums or any other of the buildings I have occasion to visit.
I live in Flower Mound and have been to city hall numerous times without difficulty. The court's offices and secured area are clearly delineated. About the only other building belonging to the city I have been in is the library. No policy prohibiting carry there.
As I am sure you are aware, there is a separate line in the state capitol building for those with licensed concealed handguns. You present your self to the DPS officer, he runs the CHL and you are on your way.
It has truly been a non-issue in most city and state owned buildings and venues I have been to. This policy probably would have gone unnoticed and the carry of my weapon a non-event had I just arrived and attended. But I knew there would be screening there and so I sought the additional information prior to attending.
>
> Secondly, note that the policy is designed to cover all weapons that may be banned or regulated, and not just handguns. The policy is also apparently directed at off duty law enforcement personnel, who usually have the right to carry a handgun in other circumstances.
I understand the nonexclusive scope of weapons covered in the policy and that off duty police are named specifically. But like any other policy , sign or ordinance; the only ones that you can hope will comply are those that respect the law and policies already. So the list can include any number of named weapons and the only ones that would care are those that are already complying with the law. This is why policies like this one and unarmed private security at the door are often referred to as "security theater". It gives the perception of safety without any practical effect on the actual safety of the patronage.
It don't know how they would hope to preclude off duty law enforcement. They are permitted by law and often required by department policy to carry off duty. I can not understand why the facility tries to prevent carry by these officers or why they would want to.
>
> At any rate, we are trying to balance the different interests to come up with a recommendation as to whether the policy needs modification. From yor [sic] standpoint as a holder of a license, please explain the consequences of such a policy to you, and how it adversely affects you.
The policy as it stands is not enforceable and could expose the city of Grand Prairie to financial liability should a CHL holder be injured due to violence after being compelled to comply with the policy. This does not begin to touch the possible charges of false arrest, wrongful prosecution and official oppression should a CHL holder be subjected to ejection, harassment, arrest or jail for refusing to comply.
It effects me adversely as I am left with few and unpleasant choices. I either leave myself and my family defenseless and my weapon subject to theft in a car or I face the possibility of having my family's evening and finances ruined by defending an erroneous arrest should it go that far. The reality is the statistical probability of becoming a victim of a violent confrontation are extremely low. I have exceeded the national average already, as has my wife, but still consider my personal odds of such a thing happening again at next to nil. In fact to borrow from others, "If I thought I needed my weapon, I'd stay home." However, I cannot over emphasize that a person bent on violent crime or robbery would not give one wit about policies, signs or laws. As such, a place where they know that those that do obey the law and policies are unprotected which makes for a victim rich environment. The Virginia Tech massacre is a good example. State law allowed for CHL carry on campus but the school had a "policy" that did not. Violating that policy would most certainly result in expulsion. Though there were CHL holders present, they were doing the "right thing" in obeying the policy and were powerless to stop Cho. Mr. Cho did not care about the policy or the law, those that did were defenseless.
> We also invite you to offer any alternatives to the policy.
I have a simple alternative that leaves the perception of safety and complies with the law. First, I would remove the prohibition of off duty law enforcement officers. That is a legal quagmire best avoided in my humble opinion. Then you could add language excepting CHL holders. If I were to rewrite the policy:
Weapons
Guests, except those permitted by State Law, are prohibited from bringing weapons into the theatre. Verizon Theatre does not provide weapon lockers. Weapons may not be checked in at Guest Services. Weapons include, but are not limited to, the following: Firearms, explosives, stun guns, handcuffs, brass knuckles, sticks, clubs, batons, martial arts instruments, pepper spray, tear gas, and knives. Guests found in possession of any of these items may be subject to arrest.
With language like this, those that know the law such as CHL holders and peace officers will know what is meant by "except those permitted by State Law". The line, "Guests found in possession of the above-mentioned items will be asked to remove the item from the theatre or dispose of it. " becomes redundant and those not "permitted by law " would either be violating statute outright or could be charged with criminal trespass when refusing to leave, thus the simpler ending sentence. Leave the current signs you have in place. This should ease those that are concerned about such things, be a completely enforceable policy and would eliminate the possibility of suits by CHL holders and law enforcement officers.
As it stands now, the security at the door was perfect, a non-invasive glance in bags and purses for (I assume) recording devices and outside food and drink. Again, a CHL will by law keep their weapon concealed and no one should ever know.
If you decide to introduce wands you may have an awkward situation when they encounter a CHL holder who is carrying. The procedures would have to be very carefully handled to prevent possible illegal actions on the part of your staff, the added expense of additional training and equipment would be an expense necessary to successfully employ such measures . If the security is a contractor, then their rates would most likely increase to defer the added costs.
You could enact a policy similar to the State Fair of Texas but that would require uniformed PD , which would have to be paid in addition to the expenses mentioned above, to check IDs when a licensee is discovered. This would be expensive and from what I saw at Verizon, it would most certainly expose the carry status of the CHL holder which in turn could unsettle other patrons and or lead to expensive suits.
I realize that we have been discussing the particulars of the Verizon theater but I would encourage a review of the policies in all facilities owned by the city and ensure their compliance with state law.
I hope this response is not too wordy and that it addresses the input you are looking for. I thank you again for your sincere concern and seeking of information and opinion. If you wish any more exchanges I welcome them. If you are ever of a mind to, I would be more than happy to meet with you or even share a lane at the range.
Thank You,
Dragonfighter
Most cities really do; the cost of defending a wrongful arrest and defending a Federal civil rights suit can be prohibitive; as far as I remember every 
Exactly, in some situations "Silence is golden" but in others, contacting and informing local Govt about their error is good if done the right way .... not like a "test case attitude" nor a "don't step on my rights" attitude" but they all seem to understand saving money and that they should correct ordinances which violate State law and could be costly ....
