TexasCHLforum.com

O6nop wrote:

I think this is a classic "You can please all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time," scenario.

This is true, but nothing is wrong with a healthy debate, and except for those that almost sound like they want some folks to just sit down and shut up, this is a healthy debate. It's good to rebut a statement, but it just seems there's got to be a better solution than how it's setup now.
As far as CHL laws go or 2A in general, I don't think we are as good as we can get, regardless of what other states do. Texas can be a leader and an example. So far, we are following and even falling behind other states. Texas should be a leader.

Totally agree...

The law that I referenced, definitely centered on intent to keep CHLers in a confidential situation. We can sit back and worry about what legislation might be passed to hinder us, but more importantly, we shouldn't stop trying to get legislation introduced to improve the situation. Legislators have to know we aren't satisfied, they have to know what we are thinking, otherwise they stop working for us.

I believe some are not working with or for us already, and those that we do dissgree with, if they are politically amiable to the idea that any citizen should have the ability and mechanism to debate and present dissagreements (as has been here, in my opinion, one of the best threads in this forum this year), then that should be the direction we should proceed on...

Some believe this is not that big a deal, I agree that it may not be, but then again, if their is even a slight bit of a problem, then what is wrong with making points, seeing what others may say in rebuttal or dissagreement, I believe that helps everyone define their own personal lines in the sand, so to speak...It makes you stronger, and it may help others who may not engage in the discussion at all...

If I am wrong on this, then there are quite a few people on this forum that know me well enough to know I will admit and accept that reality...

The neat thing is that the beer is ice cold and tasty for both sides at the end of the day...And I'm buying, whether I am right or wrong, because that IS the way I roll!!!

Douva wrote:*I think the CHL line should be a staff/journalists/CHL line (which, based on some accounts, it may be; I've simply heard it described as being labeled "CHL"). As previously stated, I don't like the idea of all CHL holders being separated from the crowd and lined up for public viewing.

If that was the case, some of us would not have a problem then, it would just be another dirn hoop we have to jump through, just because...But based upon the original report, I'm not seeing it being a line any capitol "staff" or journalist go through to gain access to this government facility...

Personally, I believe the risk to any facility open to the public will never be able to garner total security...If something terrible happens, then the breakdown and failure unfortunately is with something or someone else, not because (of people like us) this state should respect the privacy, and maturity of people like us who have jumped through the hoops to get this special piece of plastic...

And not because I or anyone else believes we deserve a free bowl of soup for our troubles...

I kinda thought many years ago that when I did qualify for this license, that I would be afforded privacy, discretion per the law in regards to contact with commissioned law enforcement agencies in this state, and not be subjected to any semblance of violation of those provisions at the whim of unelected entities...

I am not a cut and paster of the penal code on this forum very much...I would rather interpret (as best I can) the intent of the law and obey that law because its the right thing to do, and we should expect those that make the law, and enforce the law to do that even better than us...

ELB, I have to tell you, man I am with you...I believe you when you say that this might be a fight we should not engage, just because it may affect some other risks to the CHL law and other pro-gun legislation coming up...But I think it is worth it here...I do not see this as a long-run or short-run risk, but I see it as something placed before us that those who implemented it, do not believe we would fight it...

So if it is removed, then are we back to square one??? No, we are back to where we were before an idiot took a couple of pot shots at the granite walls of our house...He has been dealt with...And in reality no one, including Senator Dan Patrick, has egg on their face, except in their reaction...

There is a solution to this problem...Mitigating the risk is what we all do every single time we carry a firearm for lawful self defensive purposes...

I don't believe any of us should have to make excuses for doing so, or be questioned or scrutinized as to why we do it...It is our descision, it is a personal one, based upon a moral conviction, and a belief in the protection of personal freedom, liberty and as a responsible and accountable citizens of this community, state and country...

I hope in principle at least that we are on the same side...We may choose to fight different battles, but in the long run you and I both would protect eeryone's overall right to keep and bear arms as an unalienable right granted by an authority higher than any government instituted amoung men (and women )...

You know what's funny, here is a situation where the issue appears to be fairly trivial, and unobtrusive...And wee may dissagree on the severity and need to address it from certain points of view...

Yet I know for a fact that when the "big" challenges come up on the radar...We all form a very formidable conglomeration of like minded patriots that will win in the end...

BrianSW99 wrote:That law is specifically relating to open records requests and says that dps can't disclose the license status of an individual to someone making a request under the freedom of information act. It prevents, for example, your employer from contacting dps without your knowledge or consent to find out if you have a chl.

That law doesn't address the separate screening line at the Capitol or the private security scenario above because no information is being obtained by an open records request. That's the same law that a lot of folks cited to say that what the State Fair was doing was illegal but I just don't see it. We may not like it, but I don't think it's illegal.

I agree, but I have made my argument that it does violate our privacy, and I see that "ELB" has made a very good rebuttal to my argument as well...

O6nop wrote:I can follow and wholeheartedly agree with stevie. It bothered me and I knew I'd heard of some law that protects CHL privacy.

With a search I found HB991 of the 80th Legislature (2007)

Thanks for posting this...

BrianSW99 wrote:[quote="stevie_d_64"
I still believe the system they have implemented is violating the law...

I'd be curius to know which law you think they are violating? I'm not aware of one that would seem to apply in this situation.[/quote]

Per the CHL law, I understand, our identities (the fact that we carry handguns under the provision of that law) is supposed to be held in confidence, per that law...

If a procedure forces us to reveal that "secret" identity, then that procedure would be illegal, wouldn't it??? That violates the law, doesn't it???

I just posted an article (in the "Politics" section of this forum) by the editorial department of the Austin American Statesman that illustrates that this whole issue was not generated by a legislative process, and that, in and of itself, violates the state law...

So, if you ask me, I believe this system needs to be removed immediately, or, in my opinion a lawsuit should be filed to make that happen at the very least...

Either way, a legislative solution to keep these types of "knee-jerk" reactions by unelected bodies from being implemented should be sufficient to keep me off the warpath...Not that its about me...

I would like to clarify that most of us, including me, are satisfied with where we are in regards to the CHL law, and its protections afforded to those licensed to carry under those provisions...

I cannot and will not accept arbitrary changes by entities who are not accountable to the voters of this state (especially on issues like this!!!)...If the legislative branch decides to repeal this law, and the governor signs it or allows it to become law, then that is a battle we'll have to fight at that time...But this is something that was completely avoidable, yet it wasn't nipped in the bud when it should have been...

The only reason I am being so public about my opposition to this, is that I have not seen anything, publically, or sent to me in private that this is being addressed...

I am being a pest about this because I want to illicite a response, regardless if I am correct or not in doing so...I do not believe I am crying wolf, or foul on these points, so I will continue to chime in till I see or hear something which answers what I believe are valid concerns...

Instead of me digging up chapter and verse of the law, why don't I just put you in a situation and you tell me if you believe, or not, that this is a violation of the law...

You are a delegate to the GOP convention up in Dallas this weekend...

You are in a room full of thousands of other delegates waiting to breakup and go to your district caucuses, or committee meetings for testimony, or just to attend...

Before you can access those processes, those who are unarmed, can go through "this" line to be screened (metal detectors), and just down the way, those of us who carry under the provisions of the Texas CHL law MUST be screened and verified in this "other" line as noted by signage and other publically announced instruction(s)...You are required, through no violation of any other law to present your CHL credential to lawful authority for verification (scrutiny) before you may proceed...You will be subsequently badged, so that a quick visual scan of you and your convention credentials can be seen by anyone, and know that you have been "cleared" specially by convention "contracted" security...

Now...Does that appear to be wrong, or against the law, or what???

Heck, lemme go search the statute, I'll try to grab something I believe is relevant here...No prob...

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:To the posters who don't like what the OP reported
about his entry experience to the Capitol:

Chill my friends.

It sounds like the experience is minimally intrusive.
So what if somone sees you go through the "Staff and CHL"
line? The only people who may hear the CHL questions posed
to you by the troopers are very close to you.

I understand and respect your observation here...But it's the principality [snicker], of the situation that bothers me...

I still believe the system they have implemented is violating the law...

People have filed lawsuits on issues of less importance, and much less credible, legal grounds than what is being questioned here...

I feel pretty comfortable being a "stick in the mud" on this issue, and if I have offended anyone because of my persistence, I apologize, I just have a pretty good gut feeling that this (based upon the testimony of a participant on this website), that this is wrong from here to Christmas, and that I truely believe this solution needs to be scrutinized...

I know Charles has explained this, and was privy to its discussion and implementation, and if he is comfortable with it, I can respect that, but I have to seriously question why this was done (for whatever reason"s") without a public review, or apparent "future" review, and testimony from the public about this...

I'm sorry, but this just sticks in my craw the wrong way...And I feel compelled to be very public with my concerns about it...

Bottom line is we have got bigger and better things we need to be on top of legislatively, than get bogged down with something that should not be (and made) a problem in the first place...

And yes, I believe (and we had better expect) we are going to have to seriously address the issue...I would rather not, but then again we did not get our day in court (so to speak)...

Again, this is just my opinion...

ELB wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:...
Or maybe someone needs to tell me I am wrong on this, and tell me I am making a mountain out of a molehill...

Yes I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ok, fair enough...You bring up some great points, they are well received...But since I can only base my analysis on your recent experience, I guess I am only digging the hole a little deeper I suppose...

I will soon find out about how infringing this is when I get there...

But, based upon what they have in play now, I wonder what a lawsuit would do, if I (and any others) claim that this "system" is in violation of the law...

See, it's really simple...If you or I can only gain access to the capitol by going through a "special line" in plain view of the rest of the public, and that line is labeled "CHL"...Then it is rather obvious that our ability to remain anonymous, or concealed is technically violated for no other reason than to "verify" the validity of our CHL license??? Come on, we have not even given probably cause to be contacted by law enforcement, other than the fact that we WILL be found out if we pass through the metal detectors...Therefore we have been given this special line, in public view, to go through just so we can be "verified"???

Personally, you ELB, and the other participants who are licensed to carry per the laws of this state, I would not want you guys and gals to have to be subjected to this intrusive, revealing and illegal screening...That was not the purpose of this law passed that was passed 15 years ago...And "factions" within our government were surely not given leave to arbitrarily change something to suit the needs of a few in this state without due process!!!

By the way...If we are to be specially treated, and given indiscrete scrutiny in a special line, while others (in view) are in another line...

Then if this is accepted by the CHL community in general, then I believe it is only fair, and prudent, dispite my reservations to the overall issue of the carrying of a firearm for lawful self defense in this state, that if we are to be treated like this for jumping through the state hoops, per the law...

Then I believe it should not be illegal to carry openly in this state...To remove all doubt and suspision about our purpose as citizens of this state...

I thought I was for the option to carry openly, and I believe this is absolutely imperative and necessary now that they have implemented this "solution' which in my opinion is a violation of the law in this state...

We were supposed to be able to carry discretely, and our capability was supposed to be confidential...This system apparently violates those provisions in the law, in my opinion...

Now...Not to be empty of the obvious ramifications of my opinion...I still have my reservations about open carry in this state, but if they are going to change the rules, just because, then I believe my position is a valid one, not requiring any special need to form a consensus of "private group" to lobby the state to change the law, since they obviously have broken the law in my opinion by treating CHL'ers with a lack of discretion and special screening, in view of the public...

I was not looking to change anything which went against the grain of the overall consensus of opinions by the participants of this forum, but reality has stepped in and challenged all of us to look at this as harshly as they are going to treat us at the state capitol as law-abiding citizens of this state...

Again, I will be extremely respectful and open to the idea that I may be wrong, but be prepared to explain to me, based upon this report, by a member of this forum, that this is not a violation by the state, of the law...

ELB wrote:

C-dub wrote:Very interesting. Thanks for the report ELB. I wonder what swiping the license tells them? I would think that if something wasn't up to snuff then the license would have been revoked. Might they be checking to make sure it is not a fake?

Mr. Cotton noted in another thread that they are checking the license against the Texas DPS database to make sure it is current/valid. I suspect a revocation probably takes awhile. It occurs to me I should have asked him what he would have done if I had had a Texas-recognized license from out of state, since that can't be validated against the DPS database.

You ask the $64 question...Our reciprocity, in my opinion, is being severely tested if you ask me...

The other thing, I am absolutely NOT IMPRESSED WITH AT ALL!!! Is the improper screening treatment being given to those of us with the "plastic"...I thought the "CHL Line" per the other thread, was supposed to be a similar and discrete line for capitol employees and elected officials...Per the other thread we were simply to show our CHL license, and continue on our way (business or tourist), without being questioned if we are actually "armed"...To which I say this is a stupid question to ask if we are presenting our license in compliance with state law...

Seems to me we are being required to "ask" permission to gain access to our house...When are our elected officials going to finally realize we are NOT the problem...I don't think I have to ask the two elected officials that represent me that question, they know who I am and where I am coming from...And the fact they know that it is very likely I am armed in compliance with state law, that does not come to a point of dissagreement or discussion in our meetings...

I am offended by this "solution" from every conceivable angle...

Seems to me this is a line designed to discourage us from staying armed, and discretion went out the window...The fact that the personnel who are manning the "special line" tell us that the "regular line" will be quicker, if we weren't armed, is a clear indication that CHL's are not welcome at the state capitol, and that we are going to be severely scrutinized (and more importantly, identified) in front of other guests in the "other" line for being armed in the capitol building, in violation of state law!!!

Something is wrong with this picture, and I have no reason to not believe or question the validity of the original post in this thread...

I'm sorry if I appear to be harsh on this issue, but it appears we may seriously need to question the "solution" the "nervous ninnies" implemented in OUR OWN HOUSE!!!

Or maybe someone needs to tell me I am wrong on this, and tell me I am making a mountain out of a molehill...

I promise to be nice and respectful as always, and open to where I may be wrong in my analysis of this revelation by one of our participants in this website...