Search found 2 matches

by KBCraig
Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:13 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Who's for less Prohibited places?
Replies: 71
Views: 5142

Re: Who's for less Prohibited places?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our marching orders are to go out and win and we can't do that by diluting the pro-gun votes for third-party candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning.
Is anyone else amused that this example involves three pro-gun candidates? Two A-rated TSRA major party candidates, and a libertarian who would presumably be A or A+ if the TSRA would rate LP candidates?

And yet the defense is that TSRA mustn't "dilute" pro-gun votes?

:banghead:
by KBCraig
Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:33 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Who's for less Prohibited places?
Replies: 71
Views: 5142

Re: Who's for less Prohibited places?

Places off limits by statute: none, especially not private property.
- This means parimutuel race tracks, sporting venues, and bars would enjoy the same status as any other private property: free to ban carry, or not.

Places allowed to be posted as off-limits by trespass law: all private property.
- But the penalty should be reduced to a maximum $50 fine, and no loss of license.

Governmental places allowed to be off-limits by local policy: secure areas of correctional facilities, and secure courtrooms (not undefined "courthouses"!)
- Allowed, but not mandated by statute; wardens, sheriffs, and judges should be free to secure their facilities, and simply deny entrance to anyone who can't pass the security screening point. No statutory penalty, just no admittance.

Secure area of airports, etc., are already covered by federal law. There is no need to replicate the federal law within the Texas statutes. If the federal law miraculously disappeared, the private property owners (the airlines) would still be able to ban carry past their security checkpoint (the TSA having vanished, hopefully).

Return to “Who's for less Prohibited places?”