TexasCHLforum.com

oljames3 wrote:
County addressing effects of open carry law - News - Houston Community Newspapers
http://m.yourhoustonnews.com/east_montg ... l?mode=jqm

Currently, the licensed carry of concealed weapons is prohibited in county buildings. In 2012, Commissioners Court agreed to allow only employees who are licensed to carry a concealed firearm with them on county property.

“Recently, our governor issued a memorandum opinion that basically stated if you have a multi-use building, that is not the ‘premises’ of the court,” said Dunham, adding her office has requested an opinion on the subject from the Texas Attorney General’s Office. “We wanted to make you aware … possibly, even openly in these buildings, people would be authorized to carry and the county would be prohibited in telling them they couldn’t.”

oljames3 wrote: "Texas’ Open Carry Law: 3 Steps Hotels Should Take Before the New Year"
http://www.ogletreedeakins.com/shared-c ... e-new-year

In addition, while employees may lawfully store and transport a firearm in the trunk of a personal vehicle, the law does not allow them to talk about it or threaten to use it. Thus, hotels may want to consider including one additional provision in a handbook and/or policy manual:

Employees are prohibited from making any statements or actions that draw attention to the presence of a lawfully transported weapon or that threaten or intimidate other employees, clients, or visitors with regard to the employee’s lawful possession of a weapon.

oljames3 wrote: Confusion abounds.
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments ... questions/

Hi all, I know the full info hasn't been released (that I'm aware of) but I was wondering if anyone can advise me here. I was about to get my CHL, but I was told by someone I should wait until January 1st for open carry. Two questions:

1) If you get your open carry license, does it include the CHL in it? Or do you need to get both? I don't want to get my CHL and then find out the open carry includes it

2) Has any info on the pricing, prereqs, training required, etc. been released yet for open carry?

Thanks in advanced!

oljames3 wrote:"EASTLAND TEXAS REJECTING NO-GUN ZONE"
http://www.eastlandcountytoday.com/east ... o-gun-zone

Mayor Vernon stated he would feel safer knowing that law abiding armed citizens would be around if any disgruntled, crazed or terrorist individual was causing harm and the situation could be thwarted eliminating casualties.

Eastland Chief of Police, Billy Myrick said he would not have any issue with folks having firearms and would welcome it. The assistance to his force in case of any tragic situations might be helpful.

treadlightly wrote: Then, the kicker. He said, with a hint of bitterness, "We just feel safer with those signs in place."
[snip]
But this got to me. He feels safer in his place of business if he takes an active step to disarm me. He perceives me as a threat. I'm flummoxed.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Glockster wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

I can't really say as the article doesn't let you read other than the first couple of sentences. But what was there seemed to indicate that the universities believe that they can ban guns in classrooms and dorms -- and I presume that they think that is "all" of those -- and that certainly doesn't match my recollection of what was discussed during the legislative session.

THIS ^^.

Here is what the law says http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00011F.htm:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

• SECTION 1. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
  amended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows:
  • Sec. 411.2031. CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ON
    CERTAIN CAMPUSES.
    • (a) For purposes of this section:
      • (1) "Campus" means all land and buildings owned or leased by an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education.
        (2) "Institution of higher education" and "private or independent institution of higher education" have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003, Education Code.
        (3) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035, Penal Code.
      (b) A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on or about the license holder's person while the license holder is on the campus of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state.
      (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), (d-1), or (e), an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.
      (d) An institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education in this state may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning the storage of handguns in dormitories or other residential facilities that are owned or leased and operated by the institution and located on the campus of the institution.
      (d-1) After consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution regarding the nature of the student population, specific safety considerations, and the uniqueness of the campus environment, the president or other chief executive officer of an institution of higher education in this state shall establish reasonable rules, regulations, or other provisions regarding the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders on the campus of the institution or on premises located on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution. The president or officer may amend the provisions as necessary for campus safety. The provisions take effect as determined by the president or officer unless subsequently amended by the board of regents or other governing board under Subsection (d-2). The institution must give effective notice under Section 30.06, Penal Code, with respect to any portion of a premises on which license holders may not carry.
      (d-2) Not later than the 90th day after the date that the rules, regulations, or other provisions are established as described by Subsection (d-1), the board of regents or other governing board of the institution of higher education shall review the provisions. The board of regents or other governing board may, by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the board, amend wholly or partly the provisions established under Subsection (d-1). If amended under this subsection, the provisions are considered to be those of the institution as established under Subsection (d-1).
      
      ........
      
      (e) A private or independent institution of higher education in this state, after consulting with students, staff, and faculty of the institution, may establish rules, regulations, or other provisions prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle owned by the institution.

TPC § 46.035(f)(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Let them sue. The law seems pretty ironclad to me. It would be hard to argue that the legislature intended anything other than what they passed and the governor signed into law. The way the law is worded, a public university NOT allowed to post 30.06 in all buildings. As such, it wouldn't cost much in legal fees to take them to court because no judge could reasonably interpret the law to mean that they could establish a de facto banning of CHL from the buildings.....not the way the law is written, and certainly not in the absence of any Constitutional objections. Only the most hardcore leftist judge would fail to throw this out of court, and the ones that didn't might not be reelected.

TexasCajun wrote:I'm curious to see how/if/when a lawsuit is filed against campus carry. What say y'all? Does their argument hold any merit, or is it just more posturing & emotional blather?

oljames3 wrote:"Officials address concerns about Texas open carry"
"Open Carry will take effect in Jan. Do you support it?"
Kingswood, Texas
http://www.kingwoodunderground.com/topi ... d=11815617

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

This news story claims he won a $1 million whistleblower lawsuit in California as well....

MONGOOSE wrote:Since we have had open carry here, I've only seen 4 people OC, and that was in the first 3 months.

MONGOOSE wrote:NM

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Taypo wrote:

Glockster wrote:

oljames3 wrote:Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures in his state patrol vehicle of a woman with whom he was having an affair and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

Couple this with two rather shocking statements he made in Texas and one wonders how he ever got a COP job in Texas, much less a chief's position. The first statement was made after two APD officers made the news and social media for allegedly manhandling a young woman for jaywalking. Acevedo responded with a statement that many took to essentially translate to" What are you complaining about? COPs in other cities are raping women on duty." What!!? If his officer had raped her, would his response have been "at least they didn't kill her[!]? His "it could have been worse" attitude didn't sell well.

The second statement came when he was testifying under oath against both campus-carry and concealed-carry during a committee hearing. His testimony was that women should not carry a gun to defend themselves because they may get murdered with it. He said that women would be better off to seek rape victim assistance because there are many programs available.

Nude photos in his patrol car, a comment about rape that had absolutely no connection with a jaywalking complaint against his officer, followed by a suggestion that women are better off to submit to a rape then seek help rather than defend themselves sure make one wonder about Chief Acevedo's mindset. In my view, he isn't fit to wear a badge anywhere and certainly not in Texas, not even Austin (a/k/a "LA in Texas").

Remember, this is a man that is saying he should be armed, but not the rest of us. Scary isn't it?

Chas.

treadlightly wrote:From that Deadly Toxin, er, Daily Texan article:

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

If I'm to believe what he actually said, the 2nd is causing bloodshed and eventually we'll get rid of it, presumably to stop the bloodshed.

In other words, those who keep and bear under the 2nd are berserkers filling the gutters with innocent blood? The law-abiding are to blame?

Maybe he's on to something. Maybe his officers should give speeding tickets to drivers obeying posted limits. After all, if they weren't there within the constraints of the law, they wouldn't be inconveniencing those who would speed, forcing them to exceed the limit at the first opportunity.

Perfect sense.

Taypo wrote:

Glockster wrote:

oljames3 wrote:Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

oljames3 wrote:Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

oljames3 wrote:More links that show Texan's are discussing and responding to LTC.

The internet maelstrom centered on a proposed UT Austin protest seems to be abating. Discussion continues.


Sometimes even judges are confused about the LTC age limit:
http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish ... 7822.shtml