TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:We need a facebook page where we can list the lies told by the antigun people and post the truth.

If people realize that those people constantly lie and most of the time the media reports are wrong maybe they will quit taking them seriously.

I own BradyCampaignLies.com but I never set up a website. I like your idea, but I don't want to put it on Facebook in case Z decides he wants to delete it or some posts, so I just registered AntiGunLies.com. I can set up a website, but I don't have time to keep it updated. If some folks will volunteer, I'll get it going. It will have to stay clean so it will be viewed as a reliable resource to debunk the garbage that any anti-gun group or person publishes. I want links to corroborating proof of anything we say. Again, this will not be an editorial page, nor will it be a place for rants. I want it to be an honest version of Snopes.

Chas.

Bladed wrote:Gun control groups are also leading businesses and the media to believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to prohibit the lawful open carry of long guns on private property. This article from The Wall Street Journal states:

Current Texas law doesn't contain any prohibitions on publicly carrying long guns unless they are displayed in a manner "calculated to alarm," or brought into an establishment displaying a "30.06" sign, a reference to the statute that allows Texas private-property owners to ban firearms on their premises.

In reality, a 30.06 sign is not required to prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property and, in fact, does not prohibit the carrying of long guns on private property. Unfortunately, many business owners now believe that a 30.06 sign is the only way to keep out open carry activists.

I agree and I think confusion on this issue one goal of MDA.

Chas.

No anti-gun organization had given any thought to 30.06 signage until the open-carry with long gun demonstrations made TPC §30.06 part of the discussion. This wasn't because people carried rifles and shotguns on the street; it's because they carried them into stores and restaurants. Even Jerry Patterson was quoted in a recent article saying he would not oppose a change in the wording and signage requirement now that so many years have passed.

I've considered Jerry Patterson a very good friend for over 20 years, but he's dead wrong on this issue. Yes, the 30.06 sign is a big sign, but apparently Jerry and some other folks have forgotten the fact that small "no guns" decals that were all over the place were very easy to miss when walking into a store. This was/is especially true when the door has other decals and signs. Trespassing with a handgun was and is a Class A misdemeanor and we wanted to make sure that no CHL accidentally violated the law because they didn't see a small decal. Yes, I like the fact that a big sign is required, but the Legislature didn't, indeed wouldn't, pass a bill solely to place an undue burden on private property owners. The overriding goal was to make sure that CHLs are fully aware that they cannot enter the property with a handgun and the statutorily required language and sign size was created to achieve that goal.

Thanks to OCT/OCTC we will have to expend political capital to defeat the repeal or watering down of TPC §30.06. We will win, but it will be a battle we should not have had to fight. However, nothing can be done to stop MDA and other anti-gun people from continuing to "educate" business owners on the requirements of TPC §30.06.

Chas.

pistola wrote:

Bladed wrote:

I clicked the link and didnt see them attacking the 30.06 law. I saw them attacking people barracks lawyering what the definition of is is.

Read the caption below the photo they copied from the Forum. Also read the comments. They have been attacking TPC §30.06 since the open-carry long gun demonstrations began.

Chas.

There is a concerted effort to repeal or grossly water down TPC §30.06. Will it be successful? No, it won't but we'll burn political capital to defeat it. It does increase the chance that some will demand that any open-carry bill amend TPC §30.06 to include open-carry and that will be the end of the bill.

To those who still argue that in-your-face open-carry tactics are not harmful to gun rights overall, I give you Exhibit A. Prior to demonstrations with long guns, 30.06 wasn't even on the radar. Now, even though we will be able to preserve TPC §30.06 there likely will be more businesses posting 30.06 signs because they are more aware of the terms of TPC §30.06.

Some claim they won't enter a store if any "no guns" signs are posted and that's a personal choice. I will follow the law. I will also give the business owner the benefit of the doubt as some percentage of generic "no guns" sings are posted knowing they do not prohibit CHLs from carrying.

Chas.