TexasCHLforum.com

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report. I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee repo...

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees: "C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from ...

What all does the parking lot bill encompass? Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area. Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants. Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);r...

What all does the parking lot bill encompass? Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area. Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants. Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);r...

A valid question indeed. Think of an employer parking lot as an apartment complex. Private property, yes. But do the rights of a person who's car is in that parking lot extend to the interior of the car?......just as an apartment dweller have the rights to own what is contained in the apartment she...

What constitutes as the 51% premis in that situation. It was explained to me by TABC that whatever is mapped out on the license is what counts. That is correct. Whatever is listed as the premises on the license is what is the premises for the law. A good basic rule for you to follow is that the lic...

Am I not the only one, who is optimistic about our chances, after the Nov. elections to get more favorable CHL Legislation? I’m optimistic that we are going to have a far more conservative legislature, next time they meet. If so, what’s at the top of your list? Do away with “Gun Free Zones”? Elimin...

frazzled wrote:What exactly was the guy's message anyhow?

Maybe he just always carries a rifle? The capitol isn't in a great part of town.

We go to the Dallas Zoo pretty regularly, and I had not noticed the sign before now, so I think it is new. The one I saw was posted at the members entrance, in the window of the ticket booth. I didn't measure, but it appeared to be a legal sign, although I don't remember now if it had Spanish. I did...

It would be interesting to know what transpired in the decision-making process for the organizers to change their tune. I'd think most likely they had legal counsel warning them that they were gonna get the pants sued off of them. I'd like to think that there was some rational consideration of who ...

Legally, a leasehold conveys most of the rights of outright ownership. It is in fact, a form of ownership. I regard it as significant that the statute refers to property "owned or leased" by a government entity as property that cacnnot be enforceably posted. Clearly, the statute regards o...

It was interesting 12+ years ago when it was relevant. 80% is not relevant now, as it has been supplanted with new law. The answers from that AGO are what prompted 30.06 2 years later. Did you even read it yourself? Apparently not. it supports almost everything I have said. The addition of 30.06 di...

Of course if could show me in 30.05 ( Under 30.05, a "no guns" sign is sufficient notice that if you are carrying a gun you are not welcome. ) where these signs are defined, I would be wrong. till then we all assume they mean different things and as I said, that is/was the problem. This m...

I mean you are instantly in violation of the law the instant you enter the property, without any further notice. This is why we have 30.06, it provides for instant violation. Prior to 30.06, there was no instant violation, as the ghost-buster signs had no known legal meaning, and still do not. This...