30.06 and 30.07 signs at gas stations

[K.Mooneyham]

*If this is not allowed, moderator please delete*

I want to ask "thetexan" one question: do you own some sort of business, such as a gas station, where you are trying to keep people from lawfully carrying handguns? I ask this because you seem extremely vehement about the whole thing, and I'm trying to understand why.

[thetexan]

*If this is not allowed, moderator please delete*

I want to ask "thetexan" one question: do you own some sort of business, such as a gas station, where you are trying to keep people from lawfully carrying handguns? I ask this because you seem extremely vehement about the whole thing, and I'm trying to understand why.

I'm happy to answer your question. No I do not own a business that has any bearing on this debate. I do own a service business. I have no self agenda except to bring focus to and promote assumption-free debate and analysis to what is a valuable learning environment.

It has been my experience that most regulations do not need "interpretation". Most regs are well written and do not require analytical gymnastics to understand. But many times the simplicity of the rule conflicts with what
we WANT the rules to say.

So I try to remove any of my own interpretations or biases when I state my case.

Any vehement passion you may detect is simply my attempting to bring straying arguments back to the reality of the statutes as written rather than interpretations and assumptions of what we want the rules to say.

Everyone is free to make their arguments and inputs and we can all determine what makes sense. Everyone can contribute and the free flow of ideas and collective wisdom will benefit us all. Logic and rational, reasoned thought, I trust, will always rule the day.

tex

[K.Mooneyham]

*If this is not allowed, moderator please delete*

I want to ask "thetexan" one question: do you own some sort of business, such as a gas station, where you are trying to keep people from lawfully carrying handguns? I ask this because you seem extremely vehement about the whole thing, and I'm trying to understand why.

I'm happy to answer your question. No I do not own a business that has any bearing on this debate. I do own a service business. I have no self agenda except to bring focus to and promote assumption-free debate and analysis to what is a valuable learning environment.

It has been my experience that most regulations do not need "interpretation". Most regs are well written and do not require analytical gymnastics to understand. But many times the simplicity of the rule conflicts with what
we WANT the rules to say.

So I try to remove any of my own interpretations or biases when I state my case.

Any vehement passion you may detect is simply my attempting to bring straying arguments back to the reality of the statutes as written rather than interpretations and assumptions of what we want the rules to say.

Everyone is free to make their arguments and inputs and we can all determine what makes sense. Everyone can contribute and the free flow of ideas and collective wisdom will benefit us all. Logic and rational, reasoned thought, I trust, will always rule the day.

tex

What sort of a "service business" might that be? Despite your assurances of no self agenda, I just feel that something must be driving your intense opinion on the subject. The motivations of individuals tell me a lot about things in life. Me, I'm not police or a lawyer nor anything of the sort, just an aircraft mechanic. As an aircraft mechanic, I like things to be as concrete as they can be, something either is or is not. I don't care for ambiguities nor sophistry.

[XnTx]

I've wondered about gas stations as well. If I pay at the pump totally unaware of what is posted on the building, what happens when the CC receipt fails to print? I cannot legally go in the building to get the receipt. I cannot see hitting the help button and asking for my receipt to be brought to me. So I guess my obvious answer is to disarm, get my receipt, re-arm, and never come back. I don't like that.

[Solaris]

I've wondered about gas stations as well. If I pay at the pump totally unaware of what is posted on the building, what happens when the CC receipt fails to print? I cannot legally go in the building to get the receipt. I cannot see hitting the help button and asking for my receipt to be brought to me. So I guess my obvious answer is to disarm, get my receipt, re-arm, and never come back. I don't like that.

Sure you can, just put your handgun in trunk of car. Then you are no longer carrying under CHL authority and can remain on property. No different than any other 30.06 place.

[Solaris]

I would only carry concealed in my car if the parking lot was posted, because then I wouldn't be violating 30.06, since I would not be carrying under the authority of my LTC.

Does carry via MPA exempt you from the federal gun free zone stuff? Just curious.

Technically no, but your LTC does even if not carrying under its authority for state law puposes

Right On.


(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

[thetexan]

*If this is not allowed, moderator please delete*

I want to ask "thetexan" one question: do you own some sort of business, such as a gas station, where you are trying to keep people from lawfully carrying handguns? I ask this because you seem extremely vehement about the whole thing, and I'm trying to understand why.

I'm happy to answer your question. No I do not own a business that has any bearing on this debate. I do own a service business. I have no self agenda except to bring focus to and promote assumption-free debate and analysis to what is a valuable learning environment.

It has been my experience that most regulations do not need "interpretation". Most regs are well written and do not require analytical gymnastics to understand. But many times the simplicity of the rule conflicts with what
we WANT the rules to say.

So I try to remove any of my own interpretations or biases when I state my case.

Any vehement passion you may detect is simply my attempting to bring straying arguments back to the reality of the statutes as written rather than interpretations and assumptions of what we want the rules to say.

Everyone is free to make their arguments and inputs and we can all determine what makes sense. Everyone can contribute and the free flow of ideas and collective wisdom will benefit us all. Logic and rational, reasoned thought, I trust, will always rule the day.

tex

What sort of a "service business" might that be? Despite your assurances of no self agenda, I just feel that something must be driving your intense opinion on the subject. The motivations of individuals tell me a lot about things in life. Me, I'm not police or a lawyer nor anything of the sort, just an aircraft mechanic. As an aircraft mechanic, I like things to be as concrete as they can be, something either is or is not. I don't care for ambiguities nor sophistry.

My business is an instructIona's services business. Ian an instructor pilot, I teach grind school at a college. I teach firearm instruction. All wrapped up in a single business.

My motivation is that whatever the subject is that we study it and learn it with as little interpretations s possible as was intended by the authors. If you have been keeping up then you know I have made this clear in this and many other threads.

When you were licensed by the FAA you did and still are required to follow the regs and ADs exactly as written. You are the first person I would expect to understand my passion for the correct application of the rule. We discuss the law and its application and you are a welcome contributor.

tex

[WildBill]

It has been my experience that most regulations do not need "interpretation". Most regs are well written and do not require analytical gymnastics to understand. But many times the simplicity of the rule conflicts with what
we WANT the rules to say.
tex

I don't know if I agree that most regulations are well written, but I would hope so.
If a regulation is well written then it should say what it intended to say.
The problem is when people try to interpret the regulation to say what they want it to say or what they think it should say.

[thetexan]

I agree with that

[ScottDLS]

The Texas statutes regarding carry are not regulations, they are laws. Criminal laws in the case of 30.06/07. I think they are fairly well written, and being criminal in nature they generally must be interpreted in favor of the defendant if the facts are in doubt.

Regulations exist mostly at the federal level and they all must have enabling statutes. The bureaucracy is then responsible to draft the regulations in accordance with the enabling law. In my experience, they are rarely as clear as statutes, and are subject to wide ranging interpretation by non-lawyer officials, usually in favor of the government. If the FAA is able to draft regulations that are clearly understandable to non-lawyer pilots, they should give lessons to the IRS, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, and myriad other federal agencies as their expertise doesn't seem to have spread widely.

[K.Mooneyham]

The Texas statutes regarding carry are not regulations, they are laws. Criminal laws in the case of 30.06/07. I think they are fairly well written, and being criminal in nature they generally must be interpreted in favor of the defendant if the facts are in doubt.

Regulations exist mostly at the federal level and they all must have enabling statutes. The bureaucracy is then responsible to draft the regulations in accordance with the enabling law. In my experience, they are rarely as clear as statutes, and are subject to wide ranging interpretation by non-lawyer officials, usually in favor of the government. If the FAA is able to draft regulations that are clearly understandable to non-lawyer pilots, they should give lessons to the IRS, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, and myriad other federal agencies as their expertise doesn't seem to have spread widely.

I think thetexan is trying to have one over on me. Anyone who holds some sort of Federal aviation certificate and has read the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) knows that even if pilots and mechanics had input, that the lawyers are the ones who wrote those things. The school I attended taught a whole class on them just to teach what was really in there, where to find relevant sections, and for us to understand what was most important, so we would know how to keep ourselves out of trouble with the FAA. Which is kind of what being on this forum will do for you.

[thetexan]

The Texas statutes regarding carry are not regulations, they are laws. Criminal laws in the case of 30.06/07. I think they are fairly well written, and being criminal in nature they generally must be interpreted in favor of the defendant if the facts are in doubt.

Regulations exist mostly at the federal level and they all must have enabling statutes. The bureaucracy is then responsible to draft the regulations in accordance with the enabling law. In my experience, they are rarely as clear as statutes, and are subject to wide ranging interpretation by non-lawyer officials, usually in favor of the government. If the FAA is able to draft regulations that are clearly understandable to non-lawyer pilots, they should give lessons to the IRS, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, and myriad other federal agencies as their expertise doesn't seem to have spread widely.

I think thetexan is trying to have one over on me. Anyone who holds some sort of Federal aviation certificate and has read the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) knows that even if pilots and mechanics had input, that the lawyers are the ones who wrote those things. The school I attended taught a whole class on them just to teach what was really in there, where to find relevant sections, and for us to understand what was most important, so we would know how to keep ourselves out of trouble with the FAA. Which is kind of what being on this forum will do for you.

We WERE discussing the rules and regulations (yes, Scott, I used that term earlier in a generic sense...I am quire aware of the difference between statutes, USC, CFR, promulgated regulations...I deal wth all of these daily)and now somehow you mooneyham want to talk about me instead of the merits of the discussion of the topic. I will rest my arguments on their merits. If you have something to offer perhaps you will do the same.

tex

[Abraham]

You poor picked upon non-stop arguing dear, sigh...

[Keith B]

Keep the discussion civil and no personal attacks or the topic will be locked.