TexasCHLforum.com

Owens wrote:I see that HB910 is up for third vote Monday.

Really? I thought it was done yesterday, and will now go to the Senate.

Tracker wrote:

CJD wrote:

ELB wrote:

CJD wrote: ...
That's what I was wondering, and was wondering if there was no purpose. The amendment says that it's only a class A if Subsection (b) is met, but this is already what currently must be met in order to violate the section, which is a class A. I cannot imagine a circumstance where one enters a properly forbidden property that is not already meeting Subsection (b), and therefore not already a class A.

What you are missing is that per the amendment the Class A kicks in only if you are given notice "after entering the property."

If you miss enter the property despite effective notice or if you don't see the notice, Class C. If at trial it can be shown that AFTER you entered you were given effective notice and failed to depart,THEN the penalty is a Class A misdemeanor.

So if you see the sign, and ignore it while entering the property, only a Class C? Then, as long as you don't look back at the sign AFTER you enter the property, you are fine? Seems weird.

If in trial, it can be shown that you saw the sign but chose to ignored it, how could that not be construed as being the same as refusing to leave? It's a Class A. You would be deliberately ignoring the owner's request. The easiest way around this is be civil and not enter if you know the sign is there. If I see a gun buster sing but no 30.06 it's obvious the owner doesn't want me carrying inside...so I don't.

Honestly, I'm not sure that's always the owners intent. I know of 2 small business owners that have gun buster signs posted but have no problem with licensed CC. And they're both aware that 30.06 is required to prevent licensed CC on the property.

In their case they posted a gun buster sign so that if anything should ever happen they will have the ability to show a company policy against the unlicensed carry of a weapon.

I view gun buster signs as a warning to those that carry unlicensed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I realize open-carry has not finally passed yet, but today represents the culmination of two years of work by the NRA and TSRA under some of the most difficult circumstances we've faced in years. Thanks to NRA lobbyist Tara Mica and TSRA lobbyist Alice Tripp for a job very well done!

Chas.

TVGuy wrote:

BlueMerle wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

thetexan wrote:He gave up way too quickly.

Are you talking about Huberty or BlueMerle?

It was a bad amendment and would weigh down the bill too. Certain groups should not have special rights above the rest of us.

Meh.... it was meant to convey what a jerk he was. While I'm honestly surprised that anyone was offended, it takes nothing to apologize.

It was a joke, I wasn't offended.

Oh, I know you weren't. I was just explaining my position... and FTR I thought your joke was funny.

I was honestly surprised that anyone was offended. But since they clearly were, it was the least I could do.

TVGuy wrote:

thetexan wrote:He gave up way too quickly.

Are you talking about Huberty or BlueMerle?

It was a bad amendment and would weigh down the bill too. Certain groups should not have special rights above the rest of us.

Meh.... it was meant to convey what a jerk he was. While I'm honestly surprised that anyone was offended, it takes nothing to apologize.

SewTexas wrote:

BlueMerle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:Strickland's screwed. It'll start tightening up on him. He won't get invited to the backyard barbecues, his emails and phone calls won't be returned, he'll eat alone in the cafeteria, etc. Documents he leaves to be copied or printed will get "lost," they'll "forget" to invite him to meetings, all kinds of things. You tick these people off, they can get very, very nasty.

I was on the phone and had to turn down the volume. What was he pulling now?

Chas.

An amazing piece of "feminine hygiene-ery".

really????? really????

I apologize and withdraw my comment.

jerry_r60 wrote:

BlueMerle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:Strickland's screwed. It'll start tightening up on him. He won't get invited to the backyard barbecues, his emails and phone calls won't be returned, he'll eat alone in the cafeteria, etc. Documents he leaves to be copied or printed will get "lost," they'll "forget" to invite him to meetings, all kinds of things. You tick these people off, they can get very, very nasty.

I was on the phone and had to turn down the volume. What was he pulling now?

Chas.

An amazing piece of "feminine hygiene-ery".

Come on, a bit demeaning to some of our members here.

I wasn't referring to any member here. I think I was clear that I was referring to Mr. Strickland.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:Strickland's screwed. It'll start tightening up on him. He won't get invited to the backyard barbecues, his emails and phone calls won't be returned, he'll eat alone in the cafeteria, etc. Documents he leaves to be copied or printed will get "lost," they'll "forget" to invite him to meetings, all kinds of things. You tick these people off, they can get very, very nasty.

I was on the phone and had to turn down the volume. What was he pulling now?

Chas.

An amazing piece of "feminine hygiene-ery".

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Just think of the people that live in the DFW cluster of cities. What a mess this would cause.

Exactly. You can go in/out/in/out of the city of Dallas a dozen times in 15 minutes of driving.

Same for the mid-cities. It would be an absolute disaster if that passed.