TexasCHLforum.com

All this talk about private property, 30.06/30.07 signs, businesses, etc. is an entertaining academic discussion. That's all it is. There is absolutely no support in Austin for denying businesses the ability to prohibit guns on their property. I know, I tried to promote that concept and it never got off the ground. Texas Assoc. of Business (TAB) would fight it like a tiger, as wood private property rights supporters.

I'm not saying anyone should refrain from discussing the issue, but don't think there's a chance of it passing.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: We've known about this since last session. In fact, I've been letting people know for a good while. The TAB is not in full support and it isn't a major sore spot with the business community. Andrea Bauer wants everyone to believe this, but it's not the case.

I certainly hope you're right. I've heard otherwise, but as you know, sometimes it's hard to sort it all out. This TAB memo excerpt from 2015 still doesn't look too gun-friendly, especially per the 2nd paragraph:

tabsign.JPG

A letter is not what we consider "full support." Sometimes it 's merely going through the motions. More importantly, the business community has not pressured anyone to amend 30.06. Again, this could change prior to or during the 2017 legislative session, so gun owners need to be ready to respond to all calls-to-action on this issue.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

KLB wrote:Our comments are, insofar as I have noticed them, all about expanding our rights. That's a good thing to think about and to be prepared to address. But what if the anti-gunners have an agenda of their own? Has anyone given any thought to what they might try to roll back and how we might counter that? I was speaking to a friend who predicted this will be a rollback session for gun rights.

I was told by a senior senate staff member that the antis (e.g. the Moms) were going to make a real hard push to replace the 06/07 signs with downloadable gunbuster signs. They have the full support of the Texas Association of Businesses, which represents over 4,000 Texas businesses. The requirement to plaster the front of your business with the big, ugly current signage is reportedly a major sore spot in the business community. Just a heads-up.

We've known about this since last session. In fact, I've been letting people know for a good while. The TAB is not in full support and it isn't a major sore spot with the business community. Andrea Bauer wants everyone to believe this, but it's not the case.

That said, it is important that we let our elected representatives know that we will not stand for any changes to TPC §30.06.

Chas.

KLB wrote:Our comments are, insofar as I have noticed them, all about expanding our rights. That's a good thing to think about and to be prepared to address. But what if the anti-gunners have an agenda of their own? Has anyone given any thought to what they might try to roll back and how we might counter that? I was speaking to a friend who predicted this will be a rollback session for gun rights.

Rolling back rights would not be based on problems we've had. Insofar as I know, we haven't had any. But opposition to guns is not predominately based on logic. The possibility of a rollback is something to think about.

Your friend's prediction is groundless.

Chas.

MommaBear wrote:

TXBO wrote:
I think it will be a long time before you see support for open carry on campus.

Personally, it wouldn't even make my top ten list.

I'm guessing that you're not on a public university campus 5 days a week. I am.

Just because an issue doesn't apply to you personally, doesn't mean you should ignore it. I don't care about sporting events, but I still support removing restrictions there.

We (pro-gun folks) have to be on the same side or we're never going to win. I personally wouldn't open carry on campus, but I'm not OK with the law prohibiting it.

Open-carry on campus will never pass, not ever. We won't even try to pass it because doing so would destroy our credibility, put our friends in a position of opposing an NRA bill, and transforming long-time friends into political enemies.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

KLB wrote:I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.

That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure how many people would go to all that trouble (attorney, court, etc.) just because they saw a sign on a state building, however.

I would as would some of my attorney friends. Local officials will either start obeying the law, or they will create a cottage industry for us.

Chas.

KLB wrote:I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.

I've already suggested this, but without altering the daily per sign fines that would go to the state. I'm also promoting other changes with notices.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

Ruark wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

Whether that's true or not, any suggestion of allowing licensees to carry into schools is an absolute, instant non-starter.

I'm not so sure about it being a non-starter forever. It may be hard to get it considered today but I think down the road it could happen. Consider that some school districts are allowing some teachers to carry. Not long ago, that was thought of as an absurd nonstarter.

With an increasing number of school districts exercising their authority to allow the carrying of handguns in school buildings, I no longer think it is a goal that is DOA. I would have agreed a few years ago, but no longer. Couple the threat to school children with the intellectual dishonesty of local officials thumbing their noses at §411.209/SB273 and we may find a Legislature willing to remove all unnecessary off-limits restrictions.

Chas.

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.

Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.

You make good points. I'd be willing to extend the criminal courtroom (but not civil courtrooms) prohibition to family members of the crime victims, even if they are not testifying as a witness.

Chas.

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.

amtank wrote:In truth I think the NRA should allow its state affiliates to dive into the minutia of issues and actions and not just score on headlining votes.

It's obvious you don't like Straus for reasons other than Second Amendment issues and that's certainly your prerogative. I may well agree with you on those other issues, but because of my position as an NRA Board Member, I don't publicly make position statements on those issues. (Well, not too often anyway.)

The NRA and TSRA rate elected officials based upon what they do for gun owners. To consider other issues would not be appropriate for a Second Amendment organization. Straus did a lot to get three major gun bills passed in 2015. Without his strong efforts, at least two of the three would not have reached the House floor.

As for the NRA and TSRA ratings and endorsement, both put out voter guides. The NRA lobbyist lives in Texas and she's the only NRA state lobbyist that does not live in VA close to NRA HQ. She is very well informed about what is and is not done in Austin, largely because she's in on it.

Chas.

DevilDawg wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

amtank wrote:

rtschl wrote:I see one major obstacle that can be summed up in two words:

Joe Straus

Surely you don't mean NRA-PVF endorsed Speaker of the House Joe Straus he has an A rating....

What did Speaker Straus do for gun owners in the 2015 Texas Legislative session?

Chas.

Pardon the interruption, but I do believe we need a "sarcasm" button.. Also the irony that Speaker Straus has/had an "A" rating when in fact he should be rated "D" at best.

Back in my lane...

Since amtank hasn't answered my question, perhaps you could. What did Speaker Straus do for gun owners in the 2015 Texas Legislative session? I'm no Staus fan, but facts are facts. If your answer, and antank's for that matter, is "I don't know," then say so.

Chas.

amtank wrote:

rtschl wrote:I see one major obstacle that can be summed up in two words:

Joe Straus

Surely you don't mean NRA-PVF endorsed Speaker of the House Joe Straus he has an A rating....

What did Speaker Straus do for gun owners in the 2015 Texas Legislative session?

Chas.