2017 Legislative Priorities

[KLB]

I think all of this .06/.07 mess can be solved by simply re-defining what the word "private property" means.

My home is private property because it is not open to the public. If you run a business that is open to the public at large (retail, food), then by the very nature of being open, you aren't "private".

Concepts from one area of the law often get transferred to others. That makes what you said one of the scarier things I've heard in a long time. I quake at what your average pink could do with your idea to define away private property for all sorts of purposes.

[ralewis]

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.

I think we're at a good place with the current 30.06/07 signs and the change in penalty so it's not a CHL death penalty (Class A to a Class C misd) if you accidentally walk past a 30.06 sign.

I'd much rather see the emphasis on changing the prohibited places. Sporting events/bars/etc. And if that needs to be married with a .02 BAC, I'd be fine with that. That's kind of how it's like in TN.

[TresHuevos]

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.

I think we're at a good place with the current 30.06/07 signs and the change in penalty so it's not a CHL death penalty (Class A to a Class C misd) if you accidentally walk past a 30.06 sign.

I'd much rather see the emphasis on changing the prohibited places. Sporting events/bars/etc. And if that needs to be married with a .02 BAC, I'd be fine with that. That's kind of how it's like in TN.

I'd be curious to see if there are any statistics on how many citations have bee issued for 30.06 and .07 infractions. Both of the Class A and C variety.

[locke_n_load]

If I were to wish for law changes for Christmas, I would wish for:

* Remove most unnecessary arbitrary restrictions. Racetracks, sporting events, amusement parks.... Remove enhanced penalties for certain areas posted 30.06/30.07 - Everything should be a Class C.

* Just to reiterate, REMOVE the arbitrary restrictions from 46.03/46.035! That way we don't have the crud that's happening with the Dallas Zoo, where it's owned by a governmental entity but can still post 30.06/30.07 because it's an "amusement park" which is listed under 46.035 (https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/fi ... as_Zoo.pdf). This makes me angry if you can't tell.

* Add legal penalties for posting a 30.06/30.07 sign on a business that you do not have authority to post signage for.
* Remove 51% restrictions. It is already illegal to be intoxicated and carrying, there's no need to have an additional invisible barrier if you plan on being at a sports bar to watch the game with buddies but not drink. There's nothing wrong with that.
* Require AG to issue signage rulings within a certain time frame. (I saw 60 days being floated around? That sounds good to me)
* Add individual legal ramifications for a government official posting signage that has been ruled against by the AG. If you require the wasting of government resources in order to make you/your office follow the law, the state should be able to recover those costs from the official responsible.

* Add liability for businesses that post 30.06/30.07 signage. If a patron that has an LTC on your property is robbed/injured and you had 30.06/30.07 signage up, you are responsible for their damages. I know that this is going to be very problematic to get passed, and language may need to be softened or made more generic, but hey this is a wish list right?

I agree with all and they are already on the original post in this thread! I think we can do most of it just by striking through some of 46.03, which you can see here:
viewtopic.php?f=142&t=86142

[TrueFlog]

We need to cleanup and strengthen the prohibition against local governments posting unlawful 30.06 and 30.07. Too many cities are skirting the law by pointing the finger at private entities and then claiming exemption under the AG opinion. The law needs to be explicit that any government- or publicly-owned property is exempt from 30.06 and 30.07 and that anyone who posts or enforces such a sign will be held personally liable.

As license-holders, we bear all the risk in these situations. How many times have we seen a 30.06 sign we knew to be invalid but still left our gun in the car because security was wanding, and we knew we'd never win that argument. We know we're right, but we're also afraid of a beat-the-rap-but-not-the-ride type of situation. We need to hold employees and security responsible for their actions. They need to know that if they unlawfully turn away a license-holder, they will face a fine. This way they are assuming risk and are thus incentivized to follow the law.