Charles L. Cotton wrote:With an increasing number of school districts exercising their authority to allow the carrying of handguns in school buildings, I no longer think it is a goal that is DOA. I would have agreed a few years ago, but no longer. Couple the threat to school children with the intellectual dishonesty of local officials thumbing their noses at §411.209/SB273 and we may find a Legislature willing to remove all unnecessary off-limits restrictions.
Chas.
That would be enough of an accomplishment in itself for me. If that passes, I would call the session a success for us.
I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.
KLB wrote:I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.
I've already suggested this, but without altering the daily per sign fines that would go to the state. I'm also promoting other changes with notices.
KLB wrote:I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.
That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure how many people would go to all that trouble (attorney, court, etc.) just because they saw a sign on a state building, however.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:With an increasing number of school districts exercising their authority to allow the carrying of handguns in school buildings, I no longer think it is a goal that is DOA. I would have agreed a few years ago, but no longer. Couple the threat to school children with the intellectual dishonesty of local officials thumbing their noses at §411.209/SB273 and we may find a Legislature willing to remove all unnecessary off-limits restrictions.
Chas.
That would be enough of an accomplishment in itself for me. If that passes, I would call the session a success for us.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14
KLB wrote:I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.
That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure how many people would go to all that trouble (attorney, court, etc.) just because they saw a sign on a state building, however.
I would as would some of my attorney friends. Local officials will either start obeying the law, or they will create a cottage industry for us.
Since it looks to be Trump v Clinton election in November, I think the 2017 session would be a fine time to re-introduce a bill that would nullify anymore federal attempts at gun control.
My wife says I'm a gun snob.... I'm okay with that.
Life is too short to own cheap guns...
NRA Member / TSRA Member
gsansing wrote:Since it looks to be Trump v Clinton election in November, I think the 2017 session would be a fine time to re-introduce a bill that would nullify anymore federal attempts at gun control.
........ within our State. More than ever.
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380
gsansing wrote:Since it looks to be Trump v Clinton election in November, I think the 2017 session would be a fine time to re-introduce a bill that would nullify anymore federal attempts at gun control.
........ within our State. More than ever.
Would not work. Stop dreaming. FBI can enforce Federal Law anywhere on US states and territories. All what state of Texas can do is not cooperate with the Feds.
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member
gsansing wrote:Since it looks to be Drumpf v Clinton election in November, I think the 2017 session would be a fine time to re-introduce a bill that would nullify anymore federal attempts at gun control.
........ within our State. More than ever.
Would not work. Stop dreaming. FBI can enforce Federal Law anywhere on US states and territories. All what state of Texas can do is not cooperate with the Feds.
Most federal charges come from local arrests... It can have some effect.
Native Texan Philippians 2:3-4
"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training." - Archiloches (650 BC)
KLB wrote: <snip> we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.
That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure how many people would go to all that trouble (attorney, court, etc.) just because they saw a sign on a state building, however.
I would as would some of my attorney friends. Local officials will either start obeying the law, or they will create a cottage industry for us.
Chas.
That made me smile. In a good way. Would be a lawyers' version of a Christmas bonus. At least for a few months. It would be boon and then bust, but we'd all win when the lean lawyerin' times arrived.
What I did like in one of the other threads, is that properties would have to apply with DPS for 30.06/30.07 signs that have some sort of official seal on them and the address for which they apply. In this manner, private property applies/gets signs easily if they wish, but signs that are intended to go on public property, especially for temporary events, would not be granted.
CHL Holder since 10/08
NRA Certified Instructor
Former LTC Instructor
wtgib wrote:Remove "verbal notification". Signs must be posted if you don't want to allow oc or cc.
Won't happen. Property owners have a right to ask anyone to leave at any time for (almost) any reason.
And it shouldn't happen -- all it would do is result in more signs. By relying on verbal notification only, a property owner can make it case-by-case instead of blanket-banning everyone. Most businesses have shown they really don't care if you conceal carry as long as they don't have to deal with it - out of sight, out of mind. OC has forced them to deal with it whether they want to or not, and hence signs banning concealed carry often go up right with the 30.07 ones. Leaving verbal notification in means the property owner can quietly ask OC'ers to move on, instead of blanket banning
