TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:RuhRoh...I told my daughter I would disown her if she voted for BO and I told my son I would break my leg off in his tail end if he voted for BO. Does this count as intimidation?

Technically, yes. But that kind of thing goes on between relatives and friends.

It wouldn't have mattered who they voted for for president anyway. Reps and local races are another story.

- Jim

Some bills are in the works. They will be posted here, and that's the time to fax or call the representatives that are on the committee responsible for the bill.

Faxes are the way to go. I don't know what Texas reps do with U.S.P.S. mail, but mail to U.S. reps is sent somewhere to be gassed and gets to them quite late.

Elected officials rarely see e-mails because they get so many that low-level staffers filter them.

The political reality is that if a bill isn't drafted by now, it's very unlikely to go anywhere in the next session.

I would be overjoyed to see one prohibited place removed from the list every session. It took 150 years to get where we are. We're not going back in one giant step.

- Jim

txmatt wrote:In your thread on this race, you mentioned that the Democrat is also A rated. On the whole having pro-gun Democrats make up a larger percentage of the democrats in congress is a good thing,

This is a Texas House of Representatives race. The majority in the Texas House is not finally decided.

Congress is already a done deal.

I agree that having more pro-RKBA Democrats in the U.S. Congress is a good thing. This issue should be a "third rail" for both parties.

- Jim

I can't find the membership number, but IIRC, TSRA has fewer than 100,000 members. There are more than 200,000 CHL holders. We would not have CHLs, castle doctrine, stand your ground, or relief from civil liability if not for the efforts of TSRA and NRA.

TSRA annual membership is $25. You can pay more than that for a box of cartridges.

'Nuff said.

- Jim

I agree; but how do we make the legislature see it that way, when employers, chambers of commerce, and various government officials such as DAs, mayors, and police chiefs are arrayed against us?

- Jim

artx wrote:First, it spells out places off limits, then at the end of the statute says you only have to leave if asked.

The penalty for not leaving on first offense is $100.

I think this would be a great tack to take in TX - leave the 30.06 signs and the like for now, just make the penalty much much much lower.

I agree completely.

The way that ordinary 30.05 criminal trespass is handled, the offender gets a warning the first time, then is charged on a second offense. Even then, it's a class C misdemeanor.

The penalty is enhanced if the offender is armed or for trespass to places that are not normally accessible by the public.

- Jim

Thanks.

- Jim

Where are the off-topic police when you need them?

- Jim

srothstein wrote:The place I am thinking of is the polling place. It is critical that we do not allow anyone to intimidate others while voting. But I think the better way to handle that is through better laws and enforcement on intimidation.

Voter intimidation is already a crime, whether it is done with a handgun, a shotgun, a pitchfork, or verbally.

I can't find it as a specific crime in the Texas statutes, but it would fall under assault, disorderly conduct, or deadly conduct. In the case of a CHL holder, it would also be a class A misdemeanor offense to intentionally fail to conceal the handgun.

For these reasons, I think the statutory restriction is unnecessary.

Of course, with the majority of polling places being in schools or courthouses, it's not much of an issue.

- Jim

I would also like to see them all eliminated on principle, but let's talk about what would be politically feasible in the next legislative session.

The restrictions on sporting events were probably put into place on the theory that fans would get excited and take disagreements to a lethal level. Given that (a) Texas CHL holders have proven to be more law-abiding than the average citizen, particularly when it come to violent crimes, and (b) the states that do not have this kind of restriction do not have a problem with shootings in the stands, it is unnecessary.

Pretty much the same goes for bars. Since it's an offense to be intoxicated while carrying (and in public, whether carrying or not), there's no reason that a designated driver or someone stopping for a quick errand should not be able to carry in a bar.

This law is also problematic because of incorrect posting and vague definitions of premises.

It's ridiculous for it to be a felony.

The hospital restriction makes no sense. Why is a hospital different from any other public place. Many hospitals are in dodgy neighborhoods, so carrying there should be allowed.

The only restriction that makes sense is correctional facilities. They don't even let cops carry, so I see no chance of getting rid of that one.

Jim