Wait 'til next year...

[BHill]

Instead of english and spanish it should be reqiure to post in

Chinese
Portugese
Vietnamese
Hyroglyphics
Brail
Russian
German
Etc etc


Can you imagine how many signs would have to be posted covering up an entire storefront? And times 2 for both 06 07. And change a few words every year and make them have to pay high dollar permits or a tax to post these signs

Not sure attacking the private property owners with more regulation and costs would be a good way to go. All that would happen with this type of legislation would be the verbiage you receive from a door greater.

I would be far more in favor of eliminating the need for the 3006 sign and keeping the 3007 sign a bit longer until people see that it is a non issue.

[srothstein]

To add here from the thread on HB308, I think the single highest priority for next year is to remove the statutorily prohibited places, or at least trim them way down. We could clear up some of the confusion on campus carry, but we might need to wait one more session to get enough reliable data in Texas to do that. We could also address things like the requirement for day cares to ban. That just irks me to no end.Along those lines is to clean up the ABC code about permitting someone to carry.

[CleverNickname]

In rough order with the most desired at the top:

• Remove more no-carry zones (primary & secondary schools, voting locations, sporting events, 51% locations). I would love to eventually see permitless carry, but it'll be more difficult to get banned locations removed after permitless carry passes, so we need to remove these first.
• Remove all non-handgun weapon restrictions for CHLs, or better, for everyone (e.g. no blade length or blade type limit for knives, clubs legal, knuckles legal).
• If 51% locations not removed, clarify that it's 51% of all revenue at a location, not just 51% of revenue by that vendor at a location, and lower 51% violations to a Class A misdemeanor.
• Fix the parking lot law to cover full time resident contractors, not just employees.
• Recognize all out-of-state permits by default.
• Required destruction by CLEOs of any NFA notifications received and require no information from the forms be retained.
• Make a separate LTC for <21 licensees, which is legally and visually distinct from LTCs for those >21, to allow reciprocity with certain states who only recognize licenses issued to those >21.
• Change belt or shoulder holster requirement for OC to just "holstered."
• Require handgun lockboxes for courthouses, and if necessary, make it clear that carry is allowed in courthouses outside the metal detectors. Reference Wash. (ARCW) § 9.41.300(1)(b) for an example.
• Give the same penalty for a state/local government entity posting a 30.07 sign as they get for posting a 30.06 sign.
• Remove PC 46.035 (b)(4),(5) and (6), and 46.035 (f)(1). People are still confused by this.
• Clarify that letters on 30.06 and 30.07 signs also need a minimum width, not just a minimum height.
• Clarify that additional restrictions may not be placed on licensees who enter government property where carry is allowed (e.g. requiring that they wear wristbands).

[locke_n_load]

In rough order with the most desired at the top:

• Remove more no-carry zones (primary & secondary schools, voting locations, sporting events, 51% locations).
• Remove all non-handgun weapon restrictions for CHLs, or better, for everyone (e.g. no blade length limit, clubs legal, knuckles legal).
• If 51% locations not removed, clarify that it's 51% of all revenue at a location, not just 51% of revenue by that vendor at a location, and lower 51% violations to a Class A misdemeanor.
• Fix the parking lot law to cover full time resident contractors, not just employees.
• Recognize all out-of-state permits.
• Required destruction by CLEOs of any NFA notifications received and require no information from the forms be retained.
• Make a separate LTC for <21 licensees, which is legally and visually distinct from LTCs for those >21, to allow reciprocity with certain states who only recognize licenses issued to those >21.
• Change belt or shoulder holster requirement for OC to just "holstered."
• Require handgun lockboxes for courthouses, and if necessary, make it clear that carry is allowed in courthouses outside the metal detectors. Reference Wash. (ARCW) § 9.41.300(1)(b) for an example.
• Give the same penalty for a state/local government entity posting a 30.07 sign as they get for posting a 30.06 sign.
• Remove PC 46.035 (b)(4),(5) and (6), and 46.035 (f)(1). People are still confused by this.
• Clarify that letters on 30.06 and 30.07 signs also need a minimum width, not just a minimum height.
• Clarify that additional restrictions may not be placed on licensees who enter government property where carry is allowed (e.g. requiring that they wear wristbands).

Agree with all stated. Only addition - remove any power from tabc regulations in regards to weapons, blue and red signs plus anything else they have. Had a manager in Walmart tell me to cover up my weapon because he sells alcohol at his store and tabc said that they cannot allow OC at the store because of it...

[troglodyte]

This should be an easy one.

Remove any restriction and/or confusion of a LTC being able to carry on a volunteer church "security" team.

[anygunanywhere]

Decrease the time a city has to comply with improper 30.06/7 signs to 5 days, increase penalty to include holding city / county executives personally, criminally, liable for sign postings under official oppression statutes, as well as any peace officer who enforces them.

Sec. 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.




Online DPS registration of locations posting 30.06/7 signs to eliminate the MDA ninnies posting signs on places without effective consent of the owner. If the location is not actively registered and renewed every year, it is the same as an invalid sign.

Let's do something to change one or two words of of 30.06 and 30.07 to make all current signs invalid. Or how about statutory spanish language included to make sure that the message is correctly conveyed.

Your red highlighted portion states knowing the conduct is unlawful. To me, this is the get out of jail free card for those whom this statute applies. WE can be charged with a crime even though we have no knowledge of the law. Ignorance is no excuse unless you are one of the chosen elites. Our freedoms deserve protection with limitations on government that have zero wiggle room.

[Scott in Houston]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Volunteer LTC during school would work for me as well or some kind of programs to that effect. Perhaps some kind of TCLEOSE certification by a state agency that would allow LTC to volunteer as security in schools. I'd pay for it my self. How much does it cost?

This was interesting:
http://www.cjcenter.org/trcpi/doc/8_07_Fact_Sheet.pdf

This!

I rarely am more upset than when I have to disarm to go into my daughter's school for a function or to volunteer, etc.
I feel like I'm being set up as a sitting duck. If I could choose only ONE place to carry outside of my home, it's the school!

[Ruark]

We should expect a big push for the diagonal-slash "Gunbuster" signage to replace all these 06-07 signs. The Texas Association of Businesses fully supports this. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Texas is the only state that requires these big, complicated signs, and they're hearing a LOT of complaining from business owners about having to plaster their storefronts with them, as well as confusion about what they mean, what's required, etc. DPS is posting clarifying information on their web site, but of course there are limits to how much this can accomplish.

A compromise idea that's gaining ground is going to a single sign that prohibits all weapons, instead of, or as an option to, separate signs.

[jmra]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Volunteer LTC during school would work for me as well or some kind of programs to that effect. Perhaps some kind of TCLEOSE certification by a state agency that would allow LTC to volunteer as security in schools. I'd pay for it my self. How much does it cost?

This was interesting:
http://www.cjcenter.org/trcpi/doc/8_07_Fact_Sheet.pdf

All of the schools in our district now have at least one armed officer. I would love to see restrictions against carry by LTC lifted but I believe it will be a hard nut to crack. Soccer moms will lobby against it, large school boards and administration of large inner city schools will lobby against it, and the security industry will lobby against it.
I understand some smaller rural ISDs are allowing some staff to carry but I don't ever see that happening wide scale in larger districts. Hope I'm wrong.

[jmra]

We should expect a big push for the diagonal-slash "Gunbuster" signage to replace all these 06-07 signs. The Texas Association of Businesses fully supports this. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, Texas is the only state that requires these big, complicated signs, and they're hearing a LOT of complaining from business owners about having to plaster their storefronts with them, as well as confusion about what they mean, what's required, etc. DPS is posting clarifying information on their web site, but of course there are limits to how much this can accomplish.

A compromise idea that's gaining ground is going to a single sign that prohibits all weapons, instead of, or as an option to, separate signs.

If this gained any momentum I think you would see an equal push to make signs have no force of law like a number of other states. I don't see 30.06 or 30.07 going away anytime soon.

[C-dub]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Allowing the staff to be armed is already allowed by the state. It is only up to the school or school district to choose to allow it or not.

[LSUTiger]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Allowing the staff to be armed is already allowed by the state. It is only up to the school or school district to choose to allow it or not.

Every school district needs to allow it then. Make it so they can't disallow it.

[C-dub]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Allowing the staff to be armed is already allowed by the state. It is only up to the school or school district to choose to allow it or not.

Every school district needs to allow it then. Make it so they can't disallow it.

A few do. I also wish it were more. And those that do only allow certain trained staff. I wish they would just allow any CHL/LTC holder. If they would allow other non staff members to carry I could see them limiting it to parents that have children in that school, but of course, the only way to ensure that would be to require that those parents "register" with the school that they are such a person. How many would be willing to do that? For me, since my daughter has been in a private school so far from K-8 I would have. However, next year, she'll be in public high school and I'm not sure if I'd do that for them. I might, but it will be unlikely that I'll have to make that choice.

[RoyGBiv]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Volunteer LTC during school would work for me as well or some kind of programs to that effect. Perhaps some kind of TCLEOSE certification by a state agency that would allow LTC to volunteer as security in schools. I'd pay for it my self. How much does it cost?

This was interesting:
http://www.cjcenter.org/trcpi/doc/8_07_Fact_Sheet.pdf

This!

I rarely am more upset than when I have to disarm to go into my daughter's school for a function or to volunteer, etc.
I feel like I'm being set up as a sitting duck. If I could choose only ONE place to carry outside of my home, it's the school!

[LSUTiger]

I want to see allowing armed staff or mandatory police based on student population in every dang Pre, K-12 school in the state. It's time we start protecting our children!!!!

Allowing the staff to be armed is already allowed by the state. It is only up to the school or school district to choose to allow it or not.

Every school district needs to allow it then. Make it so they can't disallow it.

A few do. I also wish it were more. And those that do only allow certain trained staff. I wish they would just allow any CHL/LTC holder. If they would allow other non staff members to carry I could see them limiting it to parents that have children in that school, but of course, the only way to ensure that would be to require that those parents "register" with the school that they are such a person. How many would be willing to do that? For me, since my daughter has been in a private school so far from K-8 I would have. However, next year, she'll be in public high school and I'm not sure if I'd do that for them. I might, but it will be unlikely that I'll have to make that choice.

My kids are also in private K-8 school. I know the parents of a few of their classmates who are LTC and that's just in 2 classes, I wonder how many parents are LTC in the whole school? I wouldn't expect people besides staff or parents to volunteer. I would volunteer until they are old enough to carry themselves.

As LTC, "we" are already "registered" with the state.

Even as parents we have to have VIRTUS training to volunteer to help at school, so in a way parents are already "registered" with the school as meeting certain requirements to volunteer.

Now just hanging out at school providing security people would wander what you are doing there unless a program was in place so I guess you might be right about "registering" with the school but I'd do it for my kids as opposed to leaving them defenseless and unprotected in a gun free zone as sitting ducks for someone looking for their 15 minutes of infamy. Parents need to start stepping up for their kids protection.

But it's no different that being a LEO providing the same service. LEO's are "registered" with somebody.