Desired CHL Reform

[RHenriksen]

i like the park lot bill stuff, but really i think if you shoot someone and the state finds you not guilt then no one should be to sue you civally.

that's already the case in Texas.

[RPB]

I'd like to see that felony in the Education code for "threatening to display/displaying etc" reduced or eliminated.
I mean there was an incident last year where a guy across the street (not on school property?) had a rifle and was firing at people on school property ... if I'm picking up my niece from school and I'm in the parking lot, I have to run across the parking lot and off school property while he takes potshots, in order to try to stop him shooting at kids in the parking lot/playground?
AFTER getting OFF the school property, I could yell, (to cause him enough alarm to stop shooting at the kids)
"STOP SHOOTING AT THE KIDS OR I'LL DRAW MY GUN".... but it's a felony to say that on the parking lot?

Texas Education Code Section 37.125 - Exhibition Of Firearms
Sec. 37.125. EXHIBITION OF FIREARMS. (a) A person commits an offense if, in a manner intended to cause alarm or personal injury to another person or to damage school property, the person intentionally exhibits, uses, or threatens to exhibit or use a firearm:
(1) in or on any property, including a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area, that is owned by a private or public school; or
(2) on a school bus being used to transport children to or from school-sponsored activities of a private or public school.
(b) An offense under this section is a third degree felony.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /ED.37.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good thing the bus that was being hijacked that the CHL stopped the hijacking wasn't a SCHOOL bus, else the CHL could be charged with a felony for helping save the kids. .... That would be cause for hesitation in saving the children.
-------
Also the punishment for failure to conceal reduced perhaps to a class C misdemeamor and a fine with no other punishmant..

[Photoman]

If we defend 30.06 based on private property rights, how can we expect a work parking lot (private property) exemption?

[blue]

-
---GET RID OF THE REVOLVER/SEMIAUTO NONSENSE COMPLETELY.---

Serves NO useful purpose at all . (except entrapment.)
-------------------------

---CUT THE FEES TO $25 FOR EVERYONE (NO FREE RIDES)---

(The ONLY exception - Military - Free, Repeat ONLY the Military!)

This will automatically trim down paperwork and processing times.

--------------------------

---CUT CLASS HOURSIN HALF.---

Reduces costs so more elderly, low income, etc. can "afford" their rights.

CHL should not be so burdened with costs and time and paperwork, while NO CHL car carry is ok with NO FEE, NO CLASS, NO PAPERWORK at all!

-----------------------------------------------------


-------Constitution Carry ---NOW!-----


-----------------------------------------------------

-----CHANGE CHL TO CWL----

So we are covered STATEWIDE for knifes preempting local laws.

----------------------------------

The more people that carry the better off we all are.

Austin listens to votes.

[Mike1951]

I'd like to see that felony in the Education code for "threatening to display/displaying etc" reduced or eliminated.
I mean there was an incident last year where a guy across the street (not on school property?) had a rifle and was firing at people on school property ... if I'm picking up my niece from school and I'm in the parking lot, I have to run across the parking lot and off school property while he takes potshots, in order to try to stop him shooting at kids in the parking lot/playground?

IIRC, this was a tradeoff that would still allow firearms to be left in the parking lot.

Also, if the outcome was righteous, i.e. you stopped the shooter in your incident, I think the following would apply:

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

[Fredd]

If we defend 30.06 based on private property rights, how can we expect a work parking lot (private property) exemption?

Good question.

[joe817]

If we defend 30.06 based on private property rights, how can we expect a work parking lot (private property) exemption?

Good question.

A valid question indeed. Think of an employer parking lot as an apartment complex. Private property, yes. But do the rights of a person who's car is in that parking lot extend to the interior of the car?......just as an apartment dweller have the rights to own what is contained in the apartment she or he rents without further scrutiny from the apartment owner? I am not a lawyer but I believe the law says yes. IMHO, the vehicle becomes the vehicle's owner "private domain", which is his and not subject to the scrutiny to the parking lot owner.

If this is a flawed logic, I do not see it. But it makes sense to me.

[srothstein]

A valid question indeed. Think of an employer parking lot as an apartment complex. Private property, yes. But do the rights of a person who's car is in that parking lot extend to the interior of the car?......just as an apartment dweller have the rights to own what is contained in the apartment she or he rents without further scrutiny from the apartment owner? I am not a lawyer but I believe the law says yes. IMHO, the vehicle becomes the vehicle's owner "private domain", which is his and not subject to the scrutiny to the parking lot owner.

If this is a flawed logic, I do not see it. But it makes sense to me.

Joe, it might make sense but it is not the law. For example, leases can restrict people's ownership rights in the apartment and do so all the time. For example, how many apartments have a "no pets" clause, or limit the size of the pet? You can even find leases that say no firearms allowed (like all college dorm rooms).

My analogy is that the car is just like nay other container you bring on my property. If you have no problem with me saying you cannot keep a gun in your briefcase, what is the difference between that and your car? It is just a container you brought onto my property.

While I fully understand the problem people wish to address, I cannot support the parking lot bill. It is an infringement on the private property rights of the business. To me, a much better solution (more elegant in that it gets the same message across without infringing on people's rights), is to make the liability explicit in the law. If you, either as a business or as an individual, make a rule that someone must leave their weapon off your property, you have just assumed responsibility for their well being. This responsibility starts at the last property they could reasonable have had the means to protect themselves and left that means safely, and ends when they return to the property to retrieve that means to protect themselves. Make the business liable for its decision and the decision will probably got he way you want it too.

[Dragonfighter]

Steve,

You're right, that is an elegant solution...I can definitely get behind that.

My argument about private property has been this. If access to my property is by my forbearance only, that is to say by specific permission implied or explicit, then I can say get off for any reason that suits me. If OTOH my property is open to generally unfettered public access, like a retail setting, how can I be permitted to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to self defense. After all ADA will compel me to modify facilities for those who are physically impaired and I am restricted for forbidding someone based on race/sex, why can't the statutes deny restrictions based on legal behavior? Generally these properties don't restrict gang bangers or people who dress like them, they don't stop people at the door and test for drug use or drug carrying. People aren't restricted from these stores based on criminal records. Where I back off on this is when the property in question has controlled entry (card keys et al) and restrict access to an individual case by case basis. In that case we're back to a situation similar to my home, you are there under specific permission.

I do like your suggestion and think it would do a lot toward forcing the hand of business owners but there would be stalwarts who presume that their politics and surplus of cash trumps my life. I'd rather know that I can carry without fear of prosecution and live, than find solace that my family would be compensated in my death.

[DallasCHL]

A valid question indeed. Think of an employer parking lot as an apartment complex. Private property, yes. But do the rights of a person who's car is in that parking lot extend to the interior of the car?......just as an apartment dweller have the rights to own what is contained in the apartment she or he rents without further scrutiny from the apartment owner? I am not a lawyer but I believe the law says yes. IMHO, the vehicle becomes the vehicle's owner "private domain", which is his and not subject to the scrutiny to the parking lot owner.

If this is a flawed logic, I do not see it. But it makes sense to me.

Joe, it might make sense but it is not the law. For example, leases can restrict people's ownership rights in the apartment and do so all the time. For example, how many apartments have a "no pets" clause, or limit the size of the pet? You can even find leases that say no firearms allowed (like all college dorm rooms).

My analogy is that the car is just like nay other container you bring on my property. If you have no problem with me saying you cannot keep a gun in your briefcase, what is the difference between that and your car? It is just a container you brought onto my property.

While I fully understand the problem people wish to address, I cannot support the parking lot bill. It is an infringement on the private property rights of the business. To me, a much better solution (more elegant in that it gets the same message across without infringing on people's rights), is to make the liability explicit in the law. If you, either as a business or as an individual, make a rule that someone must leave their weapon off your property, you have just assumed responsibility for their well being. This responsibility starts at the last property they could reasonable have had the means to protect themselves and left that means safely, and ends when they return to the property to retrieve that means to protect themselves. Make the business liable for its decision and the decision will probably got he way you want it too.

This is a tough one for sure, but the apartment analogy is a good one. Landlord/tenant relationships, like employer/employee relationships are already very heavily regulated, and this is almost universally accepted. You can keep dogs out of your apartment complex, but you cannot keep out women, minorities, single folks, married folks, fat people, old people, the disabled, etc. You can't make hiring or firing decisions on those bases either. So, while I'm generally very pro-freedom and property rights, as long as the law says employers can't ban wheelchairs, I'm ok with a law that says they can't ban handguns in cars.

[Smily]

First I agree with:

1:Parking lot carry
2: Campus carry

But I feel the most right infringing law is the 51%.

Get rid of the 51% law. Its a pain to determine if places are 51%. Most of the time you have to enter the building just to see their sign.

There are also more than enough laws surrounding alcohol and intoxication.

And most importantly it simply infringes on my right to defend myself in a location where I would most likely need to defend myself.

It also infringes on the rights of private business to allow concealed carry.

If everyone here is so Pro 30.06 and private rights how can this one not be repealed.

-Smily

[blue]

Make it 30.06 ONLY that counts, not double duplicate laws/signs!

-MAKE IT ONE SIGN, AND ONE SIGN ONLY, THAT COUNTS - 30.06 - PERIOD!-

TBAC should NOT be involved or interested in CHL.

[A-R]

Steve,

You're right, that is an elegant solution...I can definitely get behind that.

My argument about private property has been this. If access to my property is by my forbearance only, that is to say by specific permission implied or explicit, then I can say get off for any reason that suits me. If OTOH my property is open to generally unfettered public access, like a retail setting, how can I be permitted to restrict someone for exercising their legal right to self defense. After all ADA will compel me to modify facilities for those who are physically impaired and I am restricted for forbidding someone based on race/sex, why can't the statutes deny restrictions based on legal behavior? Generally these properties don't restrict gang bangers or people who dress like them, they don't stop people at the door and test for drug use or drug carrying. People aren't restricted from these stores based on criminal records. Where I back off on this is when the property in question has controlled entry (card keys et al) and restrict access to an individual case by case basis. In that case we're back to a situation similar to my home, you are there under specific permission.

I do like your suggestion and think it would do a lot toward forcing the hand of business owners but there would be stalwarts who presume that their politics and surplus of cash trumps my life. I'd rather know that I can carry without fear of prosecution and live, than find solace that my family would be compensated in my death.

[blue]

"Disarming for officer safety and running the Serial Number" should be ELIMINATED.

Vehicles kill far more people and are more dangerous, yet removing the Driver for 'officer safety and running the serial' - is not routine.

Handling unknown weapons, in a unknown condition, with ANY safety requires the TOTAL attention of the officer. This CANNOT make the officer, OR anyone else within range, - Safer.

If a crime has not been committed there is NO REASON TO RUN THE S/N. (OR DISARM!)
If a crime has been committed, then the weapon will be processed in the cleanup investigation later.

The Stop should be BRIEF, with todays traffic, being stopped is very dangerous as many officers and people are killed each year, by other vehicles, while stopped alongside the road.
Wasteing time messing around with a weapon Greatly INCREASES DANGER TO EVERYONE!

[Ol Zeke]

OK. All legalese aside, lets get something, from a common sense point of view.

My house is PRIVATE PROPERTY. Your appartment or dorm room is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Albertson's, Wally World, Sears Roebuck, the Mall are all privately owned property that, during regular bussiness hours, allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter. They are Public in nature and, as such, entry is no different than walking down the street. This is NOT the same as the home.

Private property rights should be a two-way street. If the nature of your bussiness is such that every monkey with a crew cut can just walk through the door, then I (should) have the same rights as when I was walking across the parking lot to get to the door. I (should) have the right to protect myself from those around me, who would do me harm.

Yes? No?