TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:I disagree. The CHL class boils down to "Don't be a jerk. You're not a junior policeman now. Here's where you can carry and where you can't. Please stay awake for long enough to regurgitate this info in a multiple choice test. Shoot this 50-round test that a blind spastic monkey could complete." Passing the CHL class doesn't make someone "elite" in any sense of the word.

If you want to make the case for a required class, then you need to look at stats for other states which have no required class and show they have higher rates of licensee misconduct and/or shooting at things in self-defense and missing them than we have in Texas (or other states with required classes).

If that's all you got from your CHL class, then I'm sorry you missed so much. I wish statistics like those published in Texas were available for other states so I could track them like I do for Texas. If the numbers are as good as we see in Texas, then that would be valuable information to use when promoting unlicensed carry.

Chas.

G.A. Heath wrote:

CJD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I was surprised at the number who selected #9 -

"Repeal TPC §42.01(a)(8) make it unlawful to display a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm."

Maybe Im missing something here, but why should this law be repealed?

BTW Good survey.

It's unnecessary because other charges can be filed such as assault and terroristic threat, if the person truly does something threatening. As currently written, it has been and will continue to be abused by LEOs and prosecutors because it is so vague and nonspecific as to the elements of the crime. "Calculated to cause alarm" by whom? Does it mean the person with the gun, the general public, the person who has an irrational fear of all firearms, or any or all of those people? It should be repealed regardless whether open-carry passes, but it will be a critical piece of legislation if open-carry does pass.

Chas.

Regarding this, it appears that none of the current open carry bills address this concern.

To be quite frank and honest, I doubt you will see it in an OC bill, this will probably go into it's own bill.

Correct and unfortunately counterproductive tactics is making this extremely difficult to get done.

Chas.

Beiruty wrote:As for 3) Does it include Mosques?

Yes. The only requirement is that the CHL "regularly attend."

Chas.

HB2535 in 2013 wrote:Sec. 1702.3245. CERTAIN VOLUNTEERS. (a) This chapter does not apply to a person who provides volunteer security services on the premises of:
(1) a private primary or secondary school at which the person is employed; or
(2) a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship if the person is a member of or regularly attends that established place of religious worship.

TAM, everything you stated is correct. However, we also need to consider that CHLs attending church now are highly likely to respond to an attack on their congregation so the current law does nothing more than prohibit coordination or even the training you suggest. I would strongly oppose any attempt to add a training requirement to a bill for 2015, although I just as strongly agree that it would be beneficial. It should be an option for churches. DPS is currently working on the class for CHL Instructors to become certified to teach a class for teachers focusing on how to protect students. One option for churches would be for their CHL's who volunteer to take this class.

I also agree that COPs who are members of larger churches could mistake a CHL for the shooter, but I'm not worried about responding officers making this mistake. The event would be over long before they arrived. The possibility of a mistaken identity is even more reason to pass this law so churches could have meetings to coordinate, even if a CHL is not an official member of the security team. I realize some will argue that this can be done now, and that could well be correct. However, I would never recommend such meetings, nor would I ever attend one, for fear that some prosecutor like the drunk in Travis County would file charges. The argument would be that attending a security meeting would make one a de facto member of a security team or operation.

My experience both as a police officer (also a firearms instructor for the department) and a competitive shooter is that most LEO's can't shoot any better than the vast majority of citizens. It seems that the only ones who can are those who are interested in guns aside from them being a tool of the trade. A friend who was a 28 year veteran of the Houston Police Dept. said it best, "when you see a COP drawing his gun, DUUUUCK because there's no telling who's going to be hit!"

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

HB508 passed both the House and Senate last session, but the Senate added a provision that would have allowed all elected officials with a CHL to carry everywhere in the State. This amendment was unacceptable to the House and the Bill died in the House after a Conference committee report was issued.

The amount of the fine was/is not a problem.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

So current law is an excuse for counter-productive conduct? I can't imagine that more than a handful of rational people buy that argument. That argument is essentially, "I'll continue act irresponsible and counter-productively unless you give me what I want." What a childish attitude.

Indeed. I'd think a bigger push would be to ban OC of long guns as well as handguns. Have you seen any noise about that Charles?

Austin "chatter" indicates there will be an effort to either ban open-carry of long guns, or to limit people to carrying long guns unloaded and fully cased.

Chas.

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

dicion wrote:

simianangel wrote: It's pointless unless the bill includes criminal penalty and loss of peace officer license for bad cops who arrest people who ignore improper 30.06 signs on government property.

I disagree, financial penalties for agencies and specifically people who define/enforce the illegitimate policy/post the sign IMO would be an excellent deterrent.

Government types LOVE to shirk and pass off responsibility in my experience. Not a single government employee I know would risk any sort of these issues if that bill existed, and they were knowledgeable of it. The mere EXISTENCE of the possibility of personal responsibility would make them all tremble in fear of even going near it. I can almost feel the paper cuts from the memos flying around so fast advising everyone of the change in the law, and how not to even approach the issue or risk disciplinary action.

I agree that penalties against peace officers would be an additional layer of protection, but ya gotta start somewhere small :)

A bill very much like HB508 in 2013 will be filed and should pass. That Bill would have created a $10,000 per day per sign for any governmental agency that posted an unenforceable 30.06 sign.

Chas.

Bladed wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Correct and that's why the word "concealed" will have to be added to current TPC §30.06 in any open-carry bill.

Chas.

Do you mean the section that reads, "carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent"?

Yep, that's it.
Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs.

I don't care what you have seen or not seen; we are getting reports of new 30.06 signs and some are even reported here on the Forum. Quit trying to minimize the damage from the bomb-throwers.

SA-TX wrote:I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole.

The level to which you go to camouflage the actions of OCT, OCTC and CATI and the damage they've done is becoming very irritating. They've done much more than "raise awareness," they are destroying the open-carry issue and they are endangering other gun rights in the process. They made the general public "aware" that Texas law does not prevent one from carrying their AR-15 into Wal-Mart or any other store, even with it in a tactical sling and their hand on the pistol grip. They've made the general public "aware" of the requirements of TPC §30.06 so business can post proper signs. This "awareness" has also resulted in a call to repeal or gut TPC §30.06. Your downplaying the true impact is making me seriously reconsider my support and actions to promote open-carry. You are the only statesman for the open-carry issue and even you engage in these deceptive tactics.

You claim you oppose their tactics, but you rarely if ever condemn those tactics and/or the leaders who organize these action. You even try to distance yourself from the harmful organizations by coining the acronym LGOC. The fact that you won't condemn the specific organizations and their leaders speaks volumes.

SA-TX wrote:Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

No, this never happened. You clearly are buying the lie the open-carry bomb-throwers are spouting. At no time has the number of 30.06 signs been reduced in any measurable amount, primarily because there never has been a large number posted. When HB2909 passed in 1997, very few 30.06 signs went up and this was the status quo until recently. TPC §30.06 was a non-issue until OCT, OCTC and CATI decided to carry rifles into Wal-Mart. This put the anti-gunners' focus on TPC §30.06 and created the current plan to repeal or gut this critical piece of legislation that has protected CHLs for 17 years.

SA-TX wrote:I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon.

So current law is an excuse for counter-productive conduct? I can't imagine that more than a handful of rational people buy that argument. That argument is essentially, "I'll continue act irresponsible and counter-productively unless you give me what I want." What a childish attitude.

SA-TX wrote:My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades.

Actually, this is the first time I've seen you admit that there will be problems from the bomb-throwers if open-carry passes. Perhaps I simily missed this concession from you in the past. Since you now acknowledge a backlash potential, I'll call your attention to the period from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997 when we saw a massive backlash to citizens carrying handguns. It didn't "quickly fade." It grew at an alarming rate for 27 months until TPC §30.06 became effective requiring a "big ugly sign" to prohibit armed CHLs. Were you in Texas during that time? If so, were you old enough to pay attention to the concealed-carry issue?

SA-TX wrote:As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

I'm tired of you quoting me trying to promote your apologist agenda. Stop quoting me out of context and stop now. I'm not kidding.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Correct and that's why the word "concealed" will have to be added to current TPC §30.06 in any open-carry bill.

Chas.

BenGoodLuck wrote:# 2 states: "Repeal of all off-limits areas for Texas CHLs (excluding federal laws) [HB3218 in 2013]." I'm having a hard time understanding how people are ok repealing all off-limits areas but not repealing 30.06 entirely. I know we've been through this before, but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in that we're telling a hospital that it doesn't have a right to ban CHLs on its premises, but we can't do the same to all private property owners.

Why not have an option to remove the criminal penalties for violation of 30.06?

Private hospitals will be able to use TPC §30.06 to ban armed CHLs. Only the statutory prohibition would be repealed. (The statutory prohibition is meaningless since notice under 30.06 is required to make the prohibition effective.)

TPC §30.06 cannot and will not be repealed, nor will it's penalties be removed. Only a very small number of people (none in the Legislature) would ever support denying private property owners of the ability to prevent armed CHLs from entering their property. The concept of forcing a property owner to first catch an armed CHL, then ask them to leave will never fly. Private property rights are revered in Texas almost as much as Second Amendment rights. As I've said before, I couldn't get any interest in preventing business property from using TPC §30.06, so there's no chance of anything like you are proposing passing.

Repealing TPC §30.06 would turn the clock back to pre Sept. 1, 1997 and that would be an absolute disaster!

Chas.

mr1337 wrote:

6. Remove the fingerprint requirement for new and renewed CHLs;

Does anyone know if that would affect any reciprocity agreements?

I don't know about every state, but I don't believe it will. Most if not all states require a background check and the DPS already checks all available databases, including NICS. We gain nothing by spending $23.50 for every fingerprint submitted to the FBI.

Chas.

gsansing wrote:Sen. Craig Estes( District 30) and Rep. Scott Sanford(District 70).

I don't know Rep. Sanford personally, but Sen. Estes is great on our issues! He was the Senate sponsor of SB766, Texas Sport Shooting Range Protection Law, and he was chair of the public hearings April 7th Interim Study that included open-carry. He will be good on every bill we bring.

Chas.

gsansing wrote:Spoke with both my Senator and Rep, yesterday. Both have a pro-gun and pro 2A reputation. I expressed what I would like to see for this upcoming session. Both were very pleased and eager to inform me that Open Carry was alive and well. Please bear in mind, I did not bring that particular subject up, and that they both offered this up to me. Also both reported to fielding numerous calls from their constituents voicing support for Open Carry and other pro-gun legislation.

Along with other items that I would like to see changed, both seemed very on board for an pro gun legislation. Mr. Cotton, my Rep and Senator seem to be on our side.

I hope this helps.

Who are they? Also, what other issues did they offer to support?

Chas.