What about reducing non-carry locations?

[Blinking Dog]

I'm wondering if there is anyone pushing for a reduction of places where CHL is prohibited? I see a lot of other interesting bills being discussed, but I don't see the main thing that I'm most interested in - being able to carry almost everywhere. I'm afraid the open carry issue is detracting from this...maybe I'm wrong.

Charles, who is the right person to push this? I wrote a letter to Gov. Perry a while back and copied my State Senator and State Representative. Any other ideas?

Here is the verbiage of the letter I wrote, hopefully it will make it clear what I'm talking about:

Dear Governor Perry:

The reason for my letter is to provide feedback on Texas’ concealed handgun license (“CHL”) law. I’m not a political activist, and I’m not writing at the urging of any group. I’m writing on behalf of myself and my family. I’m a regular guy, a father of three, educated, a hard worker, a former Army officer, law abiding citizen, and a man who wants to take advantage of every legal means available to protect myself and my family. To that end, I decided to take an extra step in protecting myself and my family by obtaining a CHL. In the course of applying to obtain a CHL I was educated on Texas’ concealed carry regulations and was dismayed to learn that even after attending a lengthy class, and submitting to a strict background check, there are numerous restrictions placed on licensees who ultimately receive a CHL.

To start, the point of carrying a concealed handgun is to have the means, if confronted with a deadly situation, to defend oneself whenever and wherever that situation arises. A potential victim cannot predict when or where a violent crime may happen, so the idea of concealed carry is to have a handgun on your person at all times. Texas’ CHL law undermines this concept because the regulations list numerous locations where a CHL holder cannot lawfully carry their handgun. The current regulations prohibit CHL holders from exercising their right to carry in the following specific locations, or under the following conditions:

Public or private school premises
High school, collegiate, or professional sporting events
Hospitals or nursing homes
Amusement parks
Churches, synagogues or other places of worship
Any meeting of a government entity
A place of business that derives 51% of its income from serving or selling alcohol
Racetracks
Polling places when voting is open
Government courts or court offices
A correctional facility
Within 1,000 ft of a TDCJ place of execution on execution day
In the secured area of an airport
Carrying a concealed handgun while intoxicated

I understand the restriction on concealed handguns in the secured area of an airport and I agree that carrying a concealed handgun while intoxicated should be against the law, but I do not understand and do not agree with the other restricted areas on the list. My general belief is that once a person passes the rigorous background check to be able to carry a concealed handgun that person ought to be able to carry their handgun at all times, where ever they go.

I respectfully urge you and the Texas legislature to review the CHL regulations and let the history and evidence on concealed carry in Texas and elsewhere be your guide. When our CHL law became effective there were wild predictions by the anti-gun establishment, and even some in law enforcement, that crime would become rampant, that simple traffic accidents would erupt into shootouts, and Texas would succumb to its Wild West past. We are over a decade into CHL and none of this hysteria has come to pass. The apocalyptic predictions of those who would like to restrict concealed carry by law abiding citizens have once again been proven wildly exaggerated, and what we have truly seen is that the crime rate of CHL holders is insignificant. I would hope that common sense will prevail, and that a rational and unemotional review will result in a recommendation to remove the vast majority of the impediments to lawful concealed carry in Texas.

The CHL qualification process, which is very stringent, is working. In Texas we screen CHL applicants for mental health issues, felony and misdemeanor crimes even if the person received deferred adjudication, chemical or alcohol dependency, restraining orders, back taxes and defaults on student loans and child support. I believe this is the right way to administer the program, which is to apply a microscope to each CHL applicant before the license is granted so that we only grant licenses to people who prove to be law abiding citizens. However, once an applicant passes the strict background check Texas CHL laws ought to leave the person alone and let them exercise their best judgment as to when and where to carry a concealed handgun. Limiting the locations a CHL holder may carry their concealed handgun effectively negates the right to carry in the first place.

In conclusion, I’d ask that you assist me in expanding my ability to protect myself and my family and repeal the vast majority of restricted locations that are resident in our current CHL laws.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have written a bill to put CHLs in the same group of people that are exempt from both TPC §§46.02 and 46.03; i.e. LEOs, all judges (including municipal and JP's), railroad LEO's, probation officers (both types), county/district attorneys, and a few others. Whether it will be introduced is a tactical decision that will be made when we have a lot more information about the makeup of committees, chairmen, etc.

Chas.

[barres]

Thank you, Chas.

With all due respect, Blinking Dog, Correctional Facilities needs to remain on that list of off-limits places. There are too many (granted unlikely) things that could happen that could cause you to lose control of your weapon, and we do NOT want inmates to get a hold of firearms. Prison guards and police officers must disarm before they enter the prison grounds, too. Only the guards patrolling the perimeter have firearms.

[Blinking Dog]

To be clear, I wouldn't envision visiting with a criminal with my gun strapped to my hip. I think what ever LEOs do in with regard to a facility would seem to be a good starting place...secure lockers? And for the record, I don't know anyone in a correctional facility and don't plan on visiting any so I don't know what the procedure is or how they are set up. And if we had to "give" on that one, ok. Maybe there is another one on the list that makes sense, who knows, but in general I think the list ought to be practically wiped out.

I'm annoyed about the more commonplace locations. For instance, I'm not a drinker but I do meet friends from time to time at a sports bar to watch a game, or to shoot pool or darts. Even though I am not drinking I can't carry. This one is the most frustrating since there is already a rule against carrying while intoxicated.

Can't visit a friend in the hospital on the way home without disarming (haven't seen a hospital yet without a 30.06 sign). I go to sporting events, again no drinking yet can't carry...anyone walk the 2 miles back to their car after a Cowboys game and NOT wish they had their gun?

I can go down the list and point out many of the places I might visit during the course of a day or week that, based on the rules as they stand, I'm either in the parking lot disarming and re-arming a lot, or just not carrying because of the hassle. To me these rules are a back door way to neuter the law.

[Blinking Dog]

I have written a bill to put CHLs in the same group of people that are exempt from both TPC §§46.02 and 46.03; i.e. LEOs, all judges (including municipal and JP's), railroad LEO's, probation officers (both types), county/district attorneys, and a few others. Whether it will be introduced is a tactical decision that will be made when we have a lot more information about the makeup of committees, chairmen, etc.

Chas.

Thanks, and please keep me/us posted. This is probably the biggest political issue on my mind these days...well, Texas-specific political issue anyway. I'd like to support it in any way I can.

[Purplehood]

I am for this also, and will step up to lend any assistance that may be required (letters, money, etc.) to make it happen.

Another reason I like this forum...

[srothstein]

Charles,

If that bill gets introduced, let me know if there is anything I can do to help (like testimony from a Master Peace Officer that this is fair and would not cause a problem).

[artx]

I and a few others in my area are more than willing to help with this one - mail, fax, calls... - keep us posted!

[Excaliber]

I have written a bill to put CHLs in the same group of people that are exempt from both TPC §§46.02 and 46.03; i.e. LEOs, all judges (including municipal and JP's), railroad LEO's, probation officers (both types), county/district attorneys, and a few others. Whether it will be introduced is a tactical decision that will be made when we have a lot more information about the makeup of committees, chairmen, etc.

Chas.

Suggestion: Include retired Texas, federal and out of state law enforcement officers who carry under LEOSA.

This should not be controversial.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

If that bill gets introduced, let me know if there is anything I can do to help (like testimony from a Master Peace Officer that this is fair and would not cause a problem).

Absolutely. Thanks for offering.

As a heads-up for people, bars are going to be the biggest rallying point for the opposition. The media will have a field day with "CHLs getting drunk in bars" and this will put a lot of pressure on House Members and Senators. I'm not trying to get into the "should we or should we not allow guns in bars," I'm just pointing out the political reality. Those opposing a bill don't necessary need a valid point to kill it, often an invalid but highly emotional rallying point is even more effective. So understand that a bill sponsor may require that bars still be off-limits for CHLs. Many people were willing to risk re-election to pass CHL in 1995, but no one is going to risk re-election to let CHLs carry in bars. Again, this is just political reality.

Chas.

[boomerang]

As a heads-up for people, bars are going to be the biggest rallying point for the opposition. The media will have a field day with "CHLs getting drunk in bars" and this will put a lot of pressure on House Members and Senators.

If we compromise and keep the rule against carrying while intoxicated that should satisfy rational people.

What can we do to show the House Members and Senators and the public that the media fearmongers are irrational and liars?

[CJATE]

Chas, I don’t know you but enjoy and respect you and your sight.


Hear is my point, perhaps it will be heard:

Many of the places restricted typically have large crowds; Church, amusement parks, sporting events ect… the rest are were emotions run high; polling, hospitals, courts, ect…

Thinking back to my CHL class, ½ of those people should not be armed out side of there home, and of the remaning ¼ were marginal at best. I truly wish there was a secondary, or phase II CHL (CHLII). One could take additional steps in proficiency and education. That person could then qualify to reduce the restricted locations like you have set forth. The proficiency would help with crowded situations, and the education should help with the emotional side.

I would certainly never vote down any gun related law just because I would prefer it written differently, nor do I think we should adjust the current CHL qualification process.

I would like to see a tighter group of people work harder to get more in return. My vision, at a minimum, the ¼ of my class that was marginal would step it up to reach for the CHLII, and some of the ½ that should not be there at all would work on there skills in effort to get better.

I agree with you, Bars are tough. I do feel employees should be alowed.

[boomerang]

I agree with you, Bars are tough. I do feel employees should be alowed.

"Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who"
"holds an alcoholic beverage permit or license or is an employee of a holder of an alcoholic beverage permit or license if the person is supervising the operation of the permitted or licensed premises"

[srothstein]

Suggestion: Include retired Texas, federal and out of state law enforcement officers who carry under LEOSA.

This should not be controversial.

Already included in 46.15(a)(5):

an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that:
(A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and
(B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

I would like to see the wording cleared up to ensure that everyone knows it includes out of state officers and everyone covered by LEOSA, but I see nothing restricting it to in state officers either.

[Excaliber]

Suggestion: Include retired Texas, federal and out of state law enforcement officers who carry under LEOSA.

This should not be controversial.

Already included in 46.15(a)(5):

an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator who holds a certificate of proficiency issued under Section 1701.357, Occupations Code, and is carrying a photo identification that:
(A) verifies that the officer honorably retired after not less than 15 years of service as a commissioned officer; and
(B) is issued by a state or local law enforcement agency;

I would like to see the wording cleared up to ensure that everyone knows it includes out of state officers and everyone covered by LEOSA, but I see nothing restricting it to in state officers either.

I didn't make my question clear enough in my post. 46.15(a)(5) exempts retired officers from the provisions in 46.02 and 46.03, but it's unclear to me if it also applies to 46.035 which applies to carry in bars, at sporting events, etc. Texas laws are written a little differently than what I'm used to, and I don't know if 46.035 is treated as a subsection of 46.03 and thus the exemption applies, or if it's treated as a separate section that the legislature did not intend to include in the exemption.

Can you shed light on this?

Thanks!