TexasCHLforum.com

TVGuy wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

Winchster wrote:

CleverNickname wrote: No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.

Would you be willing to do all of this on your personal property?

Sure, why wouldn't I?

And as far as reciprocity and the GFSZ law, it would be nice if Cornyn's reciprocity bill changed the GFSZ law to explicitly allow any other carry licenses that were recognized by the state where the GFSZ is located.

MPA as well. I can't imagine how many people unknowingly violate GFZs across the country every day.

CleverNickname wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: You might be right. What are the alternatives?

My preference would be that no sign carries the force of law to ban any sort of carry, and if someone wants to ban firearms on their property, they need to actually ensure no firearms enter the property, with armed security guards manning metal detectors. Relying on voluntary compliance with a sign is just a feel-good measure. I'm sure the security guards will appreciate when people wanting to enter the property open carry, as it will be much easier for the guards to figure out who's carrying.

Are you a property owner? If so, would you mind not being able to control who comes onto your property or place of business with a gun exposed or concealed?

This is not a personal attack. I am challenging the poster's premise that gun carry rights trump private property rights.

No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.

CleverNickname wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: You might be right. What are the alternatives?

My preference would be that no sign carries the force of law to ban any sort of carry, and if someone wants to ban firearms on their property, they need to actually ensure no firearms enter the property, with armed security guards manning metal detectors. Relying on voluntary compliance with a sign is just a feel-good measure. I'm sure the security guards will appreciate when people wanting to enter the property open carry, as it will be much easier for the guards to figure out who's carrying.

TVGuy wrote:I've open carried in Oklahoma a few times and I have to say that nobody even noticed. I remember the first time was in a convenience store next to a middle school. It was right after school had been let out and it was packed with kids and parents. Glock 19 on my hip and I don't think a soul in the store even noticed it was there.

steveincowtown wrote:

mojo84 wrote:It is somewhat ironic to me another state is working towards allowing concealed carry while we are working to allow open carry.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015021 ... sentatives" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is actually more of a "Constitutional Carry" bill than a concealed carry bill. IIRC, it will allow New Hampshireman to carry concealed without a permit.

This bill:

I. Increases the length of time for which a license to carry a pistol or revolver is valid.

II. Allows a person to carry a loaded, concealed pistol or revolver without a license unless such person is otherwise prohibited by New Hampshire statute.

III. Requires the director of the division of state police to negotiate and enter into agreements with other jurisdictions to recognize in those jurisdictions the validity of the license to carry issued in this state.

IV. Repeals the requirement to obtain a license to carry a concealed pistol or revolver.

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:CATI was talking about wearing their guns OWB with socks that have a picture of a gun on them. Anyone aware of this happening? I thought that was going to be why the person was arrested.

It kind of was. He had a cap gun under the sock which is why he got arrested.

ELB wrote:As far as the signs go, it will not take manufacturers long to come up with a single decal or piece of signage that contains both 30.06 and 30.07, just like the posters that combine all labor and safety law requirements for posting. Businesses will not take the time to decide they are OK with CC but not OC, or vice versa -- they have more important priorities. When somebody OCs into the store and a customer complains to the manager, the business will simply order the one sign that covers both, post it, and be done with it.

So many would tell you verbally, if you were dumb enough to ask, whether carrying was ok on in their business. They would almost all say "no". And if it was made readily apparent that many patrons carried concealed, they would post 30.06.