Search found 6 matches
Return to “2017 Legislative Priorities”
- Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:48 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
- Replies: 200
- Views: 74656
Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities
For all of the hooplah and grandstanding that happened for non-campus open carry passage, we've barely seen any open carriers. Enduring more of that for campus open carry is about as counterproductive as you can get - especially when there are still places that the most law-abiding segment of the population are prohibited from carrying. The top priority needs to be removing off limits places.
- Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:37 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
- Replies: 200
- Views: 74656
Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Plaintiff, defendant, witness, relation to the parties, etc.KLB wrote:Imagine the poor bailiff confronted with 10 people carrying weapons. He must determine on the fly who has an interest in a proceeding and who does not. What does it mean to have an interest? Must it be a direct financial stake or would an indirect one do (e.g., if my insurance company gets nailed by a big verdict in this case, it will have to raise my rates)? Bailiffs are not equipped to deal with such questions.TexasCajun wrote:If you limit the court room prohibition to participating parties and anyone related to or with an interest in the proceedings, you'll hit the nail on the head.
- Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:50 am
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
- Replies: 200
- Views: 74656
Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities
If you limit the court room prohibition to participating parties and anyone related to or with an interest in the proceedings, you'll hit the nail on the head.MeMelYup wrote:I agree. The only places that a LTC holder would not be allowed to carry would be Court Rooms when court was in session (because a lot of places use the court rooms for other meetings and such), within the secure area of a prison and into the secure area of police and sherriff departments (jails). There should be no restrictions any other place.
- Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:35 am
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
- Replies: 200
- Views: 74656
Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities
That's what I get for trying to rely on my memory. I would have sworn that I had read in one of the AG's opinions that any gov't attempt to restrict LTCs (not just 30.06/07) was a reportable violation. My apologies for handing out incorrect information.
- Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:53 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
- Replies: 200
- Views: 74656
Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Yed. Any attempt by a govt entity to prohibit licensed carry is a violation.Tracker wrote:Got a question related to this. Would a municipality be violating the law if they took down the 30.06 signs and posted a [legally non compliant] gun buster signs that say "The carrying of a firearm is prohibited on this premises?TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.
If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.
- Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:11 am
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
- Replies: 200
- Views: 74656
Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities
I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.
If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.
If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.