Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.
Chas.
How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?
No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.
Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.
I wouldn't want to be trying a case where an (alleged) cop killer gets acquitted if deputies could be armed in there....
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.
If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.
Got a question related to this. Would a municipality be violating the law if they took down the 30.06 signs and posted a [legally non compliant] gun buster signs that say "The carrying of a firearm is prohibited on this premises?
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.
Chas.
How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?
No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.
Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.
You make good points. I'd be willing to extend the criminal courtroom (but not civil courtrooms) prohibition to family members of the crime victims, even if they are not testifying as a witness.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.
Chas.
How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?
No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.
Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.
You make good points. I'd be willing to extend the criminal courtroom (but not civil courtrooms) prohibition to family members of the crime victims, even if they are not testifying as a witness.
Chas.
That too can be difficult to enforce with married and maiden names causing confusion.
TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.
If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.
Got a question related to this. Would a municipality be violating the law if they took down the 30.06 signs and posted a [legally non compliant] gun buster signs that say "The carrying of a firearm is prohibited on this premises?
Yed. Any attempt by a govt entity to prohibit licensed carry is a violation.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
Hoodasnacks wrote:Lower on the priority list, but I'd like to see an 18+ requirement for LTC instead of 21. College campuses are not the safest of places (as we saw last week at UT), and most attendees are underage for LTC purposes. The girl that was killed last week was 18.
I know a 20 year old kid that was an eagle scout, served a 2-year mission abroad serving others, etc., that is about to start at A&M. The second amendment applies to him as much as to me. Seems like his rights are being infringed.
I agree with your reasoning, but disagree about lowering the minimum age. One "unintended consequence" of lowering the minimum age is that some states will no longer recognize a Texas LTC. That has already happened with one or two states, just because the minimum age for military is 18.
While everything you said about college campuses and students is correct (IMHO), the potential of losing reciprocity could harm even more people.
Interesting, that would be a bad unintended consequence. Perhaps the answer is to create 2 classes of LTC, one for 18-21, the other for 21+. I wouldn't like any additional restrictions, but there are probably some that people could stomach to get it through (e.g. taking into account different juvenile behavior in the background check, additional forfeiture circumstances). The law should certainly be more narrowly tailored than just a 21 year old age cutoff. Imagine if a 20 year old didn't get 4th amendment protections....
Hoodasnacks wrote:Lower on the priority list, but I'd like to see an 18+ requirement for LTC instead of 21. College campuses are not the safest of places (as we saw last week at UT), and most attendees are underage for LTC purposes. The girl that was killed last week was 18.
I know a 20 year old kid that was an eagle scout, served a 2-year mission abroad serving others, etc., that is about to start at A&M. The second amendment applies to him as much as to me. Seems like his rights are being infringed.
I agree with your reasoning, but disagree about lowering the minimum age. One "unintended consequence" of lowering the minimum age is that some states will no longer recognize a Texas LTC. That has already happened with one or two states, just because the minimum age for military is 18.
While everything you said about college campuses and students is correct (IMHO), the potential of losing reciprocity could harm even more people.
The solution is to make two legally distinct types of LTCs. One would be for 18-20 year olds, and the other would be for >=21 year olds. Other states will be free to recognize none, one or both. Some states currently have tiered licenses (Idaho and Mississippi come to mind) and some other states only recognize the higher tiered license, so this just isn't theoretical.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.
Chas.
How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?
No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.
Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.
I wouldn't want to be trying a case where an (alleged) cop killer gets acquitted if deputies could be armed in there....
Are you aware of this being a problem to date?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.
Chas.
How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?
No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.
Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.
I wouldn't want to be trying a case where an (alleged) cop killer gets acquitted if deputies could be armed in there....
Are you aware of this being a problem to date?
No. Are you aware of disgruntled LTC's causing a problem in courthouses? If you're going to go berserk, LTC or cop or not, you'll be breaking the law.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.
Chas.
How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?
No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.
Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.
I wouldn't want to be trying a case where an (alleged) cop killer gets acquitted if deputies could be armed in there....
Are you aware of this being a problem to date?
No. Are you aware of disgruntled LTC's causing a problem in courthouses? If you're going to go berserk, LTC or cop or not, you'll be breaking the law.
I have seen on the news quite a few non-cop family members go nuts in courtrooms. Wouldn't surprise me if they would have used a gun if available regardless of their LTC status. I've never seen an armed cop go nuts in a courtroom. Was just curious if you were basing your comments on actual events or expressing an opinion about cops in general.
Courtrooms protected by a checkpoint and cops is one of the few places I am ok with no one but cops carrying. I'm sure there are some places and situations that would be an exception but that is awfully hard to manage and determine.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
I've seen a lot of news about people in general going nuts in numerous public places that are not courthouses, but very few (if any) about cops or LTC's going nuts. I guess I could go with a rule that says that only on-duty Sheriff's Deputies acting as Bailiff could carry...but no witness cops, Feds (if you could stop 'em), or other specially privileged...
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
TexasCajun wrote:I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.
If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.
Got a question related to this. Would a municipality be violating the law if they took down the 30.06 signs and posted a [legally non compliant] gun buster signs that say "The carrying of a firearm is prohibited on this premises?
Yed. Any attempt by a govt entity to prohibit licensed carry is a violation.
Ok, then Dallas Love Field Airport is violating the law with its gun buster signs on the entry doors. They don't have 30.06/.07 postings but the airport has them on all the front entrances. If someone works closely I'd like to see the airport reported to the AG office.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.
This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.
Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.
This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.
Chas.
That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.
If you're going to go berserk, LTC or cop or not, you'll be breaking the law.