TexasCHLforum.com

ralewis wrote:I completely concur.. It amazes me how a 'blue (hopefully RED this time)' state like PA might be the best gun law state in the country.

I would imagine that PA doesn't have to contend with masses of CA transplants.

TexasTornado wrote:

KLB wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

OK, then a legislatively imposed remedy that the trespass charge will not stand. You ought to have notice when you book your room, not when you stagger into the motel after a long day on the road.

I would rather the statute just provide an explicit exemption under 30.06/30.07 for those staying at the hotel.

There's already an explicit exemption for 46.02 for those traveling, but I don't know if it has been tested in court whether or not it applies to license holders since license holders are already exempt from 46.02 or if a license holder could be considered carrying under the 46.02 traveling exemption.

But yes I think that would be a step forward. Honestly I want to see full decriminalization of 30.06 just like if you have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, you still need to ask a patron to leave before they are considered trespassing. I don't know how likely that will be given Texas' view on property rights, but the business would still have the right to ask anyone to leave, including license holders.

KLB wrote:What about requiring hotels, motels, and the like to post on their websites if they have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign?

Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

wtgib wrote:Remove "verbal notification". Signs must be posted if you don't want to allow oc or cc.

Won't happen. Property owners have a right to ask anyone to leave at any time for (almost) any reason.

troglodyte wrote:I'd like to add clearing up the volunteer church volunteer security issues.

There is precedence now that schools are openly posting they have armed faculty and staff and will defend their students. Some schools pay stipends for firearms, ammo, and training but the personnel are not licensed security guards. Other schools just allow the employees to carry if they so choose.

I don't see why a volunteer group at churches is any different.

No uniforms, badges, or tiaras, just church members watching over the flock.

Not much of a church-goer anymore, but I agree. Religious buildings are soft targets because some people don't agree with their views. As seen in the Dallas area when people have open carried black rifles in front of a mosque for intimidation factor. Although we know that Christian churches are a target as well as we remember the Charleston tragedy from last year when a hate-filled boy killed several unarmed parishioners.


Not sure if it's already been said in this thread, but also removing the authority of the DFPS to regulate firearms in child-care facilities in regards to the CCL license holders risking their license if they allow LTC-holders in the building with their concealed pistol.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

Removing force of law of a 30.06 sign at a location which is open to the public.

+1 for removing TABC 51% Red sign locations. Not all of which are bars. Not everyone there would even be there to drink. Example: Moody Theater and Long Center in Austin. Those places contract our their food & beverage sales which makes the whole premise off-limits currently.