TexasCHLforum.com

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... ill=HB1166

Adds 30.07 exclusion to the causes for wrongful exclusion and limits wrongful exclusion to 30.06/07 signage violations.

Makes fines for signs applicable only to locations owned or leased and occupied by a governmental entity and expands exceptions to include any "other law" that may make a place off limits to a person with a license.

Limits those who can make a complaint to a resident or license holder in the State of Texas.

Expands documentation requirements when the complaint is filed with the governmental entity and the AG's office.

Opens up 30.06 and 30.07 to amendment because of changes to the "owned or leased by a governmental entity" language.

Bad bill, the owned and occupied in place of the owned or leased language is a loss for gun owners. If I own a piece of property I can not give you authority on that property that I do not have myself by leasing it to you and the government should not be able to do so either. Then you have the danger of a dishonest prosecutor claiming that 30.06 applies to a property like a park because no employee of the government occupies that property at the time of a violation.

The "and occupied" part is bad. I don't care who is occupying it, no public property should ever have access restricted based on exercise of a recognized right.

Yet another Democrat written bill aimed at rolling back the freedoms that have been regained in recent legislative sessions.

The "and occupied" just makes it so that fines for signs cannot be applied to property owned by the government and leased to a third party. The third party could post 30.06/07 signs and the government entity would not be liable. According to an AG opinion, the signs posted by the third party would not enforceable.

How about we get rid of "fines for signs" entirely and just make it clear that anyone who wrongly restricts a license holder from carrying on government owned property will receive no immunity for their actions. Retraining said license holder would make the offender guilty of assault, and/or false imprisonment, etc.

By analogy, it is not illegal to wear sandals in my home, just like it is not illegal to carry a gun in a government owned building (that does not meet the applicable exceptions). Anyone (including on or off duty LE) who detains me for carrying a gun in a govt owned building should face the same consequences I would face if I grabbed the sandal wearing guest in my home, dragged them down the hall and locked them in my bathroom. If someone is "enforcing" a restriction that isn't actual legal, then they are not acting under the authority of their office. They are just being a thug, IMHO.