Went to the fair today with my CHL...

[Crossfire]

I think it would be a fair guess that a lot of phone calls might have had something to do with it.

Pun intended?

[DallasCHL]

It would be interesting to know what transpired in the decision-making process for the organizers to change their tune. I'd think most likely they had legal counsel warning them that they were gonna get the pants sued off of them. I'd like to think that there was some rational consideration of who their customers are - it is the TEXAS state fair, after all. Given the corporate nature of the fair organization, I think that's more likely wishful thinking on my part.

Do we really know that they changed their tune? The official website has said all along that CHL holders could carry at the fair, and that has been the policy since the changes to 30.06 were passed. Did anyone actually get a statement from Fair management that CHL holders would not be allowed to carry? No offense intended to CHL/LEO, but I understand that he was repeating what he heard third-hand was Fair policy as stated by a DPD lawyer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The time between the emails from Jim Dark was about two hours. That seems like a very short amount of time for such a policy to be summarily changed. I understand that when policies get passed on they can become confused, and I just don't want to beat up the Fair for an official policy that never was.

[aerod1]

Well, I am going to the Fair with my Grandchildren this coming Saturday, 10/06 and I am going to try it. In years past I have left my handgun (Smith& Wesson Airweight model 638) in the car because of the hassle they would put you through. Even if it is a hassle, I think they need to realize it is LEGAL for us to carry, so I will carry this year.

[Sangiovese]

It would be interesting to know what transpired in the decision-making process for the organizers to change their tune. I'd think most likely they had legal counsel warning them that they were gonna get the pants sued off of them. I'd like to think that there was some rational consideration of who their customers are - it is the TEXAS state fair, after all. Given the corporate nature of the fair organization, I think that's more likely wishful thinking on my part.

Do we really know that they changed their tune? The official website has said all along that CHL holders could carry at the fair, and that has been the policy since the changes to 30.06 were passed. Did anyone actually get a statement from Fair management that CHL holders would not be allowed to carry? No offense intended to CHL/LEO, but I understand that he was repeating what he heard third-hand was Fair policy as stated by a DPD lawyer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The time between the emails from Jim Dark was about two hours. That seems like a very short amount of time for such a policy to be summarily changed. I understand that when policies get passed on they can become confused, and I just don't want to beat up the Fair for an official policy that never was.

Well, since CHL/LEO stated that he got the information during the orientation meeting for the officers who were going to be working, I consider that first hand information. The company throwing the party was briefing the people providing security... doesn't get much more official than that.

I would think that it is much more likely that they simply had neglected to update the website to change the FAQ - compared to giving bad information at the briefing that they gave to the LEOs who would be working there.

Sometimes reasonable people can accept feedback and realize that they made a mistake. This sounds like one of those times.

[nitrogen]

You know, this subject has been a real eye opener for me.

I posted about this on another gun forum I frequent, and I was surprised to have people tell me, "You don't need to carry at the state fair! There are tons of cops there!!!"



Apparently, according to a few posters, it was "irresponsible of me" to carry in a crowded environment where I "couldn't possibly use my weapon safely" should something happen.

Again,

I guess I just take it for granted that people that fight for your rights to own a gun would also fight for your right to carry. It's a good wake up call that there's still work to do.

[KBCraig]

Here's my reply to those who think "you don't need to carry a gun there!" (wherever "there" is):

"When they perfect the teleporter to whisk me directly from one safe place to another safe place, I'll consider going without. But even then, you have to remember, there were a lot of people who never thought they would 'need' a gun while dining at Luby's in Killeen on a pleasant Saturday afternoon. But they sure wished they'd had one!"

[frankie_the_yankee]

I just tell people that while one probably will not "need" it, if they ever do need it, they will really, really need it.

So it would be a darn good thing if they had it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It would be interesting to know what transpired in the decision-making process for the organizers to change their tune. I'd think most likely they had legal counsel warning them that they were gonna get the pants sued off of them. I'd like to think that there was some rational consideration of who their customers are - it is the TEXAS state fair, after all. Given the corporate nature of the fair organization, I think that's more likely wishful thinking on my part.

Do we really know that they changed their tune? The official website has said all along that CHL holders could carry at the fair, and that has been the policy since the changes to 30.06 were passed. Did anyone actually get a statement from Fair management that CHL holders would not be allowed to carry? No offense intended to CHL/LEO, but I understand that he was repeating what he heard third-hand was Fair policy as stated by a DPD lawyer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The time between the emails from Jim Dark was about two hours. That seems like a very short amount of time for such a policy to be summarily changed. I understand that when policies get passed on they can become confused, and I just don't want to beat up the Fair for an official policy that never was.

I suspect the "no-CHL" decision was made by someone other than the person at the highest administrative level, whatever that title may be. My guess would be someone in charge of security. When TSRA picked up CHL/LEO's post and put out an email blast and a press release, the phones started lighting up and someone higher up got involved. Since this was a last-minute change and the website had not been changed, the decision was to deny there was ever a decision to bar armed CHLs.

I have no inside information; this is just my take on the events and timing.

Chas.

[seamusTX]

This is a textbook example of "netroots": people taking action based on web sites and e-mail.

- Jim

[L8RG8R]

Speaking of carrying at the state fair, Fox 4 just did a live report on this subject at the Fair. One part of theh report I found odd was that they showed several knives that had been cofiscated and then the reporter when on to say that of you are caught with a weapon at the gate (not speaking of CHL'ers) then you will be given two options. 1. Return it to your vehicle 2. Put it in a jar in which it will not be returned. Really? If a non-CHL'er brings a gun to the gate and they find it, they can just bring it back to their car? Perhaps this was an over site by the reporter.

They have put a poll on the front page of http://www.myfoxdfw.com for people to weigh in on whether or not people should be able to carry there "even" with a CHL. What a terribly worded poll. I'm not surprised.

I voted....

[frankie_the_yankee]

I went to the site. The yes/no answers did not have any elaboration. It was either "yes" meaning that people SHOULD be restricted from carrying concealed weapons and "no" meaning that people SHOULD NOT be restricted from carrying.

I voted "no" of course. At present, "no" was leading at around 79%.

Maybe not the result that Fox4 wanted.

[Dragonfighter]

I thought my experience was unique, but evidently not. For years I've stood there like an idiot waiting for the gate supervisor to come out and write down my stuff. Today as I approached the wand person I handed her my CHL and DL and said, "I believe you need to take me to the gate supervisor." She took a minute comparing the two documents, handed them back to me and said, "I do need to check your pouch. (I wear a Merlin pack)". I looked her in the eye, and looked down at my pouch and made a throat clearing noise and then the light went on. "Oh, yeah...sorry," she waved me through. It's the first time in years I beat my wife and kids through the gate.

This is the first I've heard on the "momentary" move to ban CHL's. That is a stupid move considering the statutes [Remainder removed in edit pending verification, read belowpostings.]

I am glad mine was not a unique experience, I hope it's the rule now, not the exception.

Kyle

[frankie_the_yankee]

This is the first I've heard on the "momentary" move to ban CHL's. That is a stupid move considering the statutes and AG's opinion on the statute.

Kyle

What AG opinion are you referring to?

[Dragonfighter]

I am too tired to run it down, but I seem to recall a 2005? opinion (or maybe a statement in answer to inquiry) that "clarified" that statute and explained that municipalities could not restrict access to its facilities or properties of those persons that have CHL's and carry concealed handguns.

We received a memo prior to the law coming into effect "warning" us that the corridors of city hall could soon be inundated with gun packing citizens (my interpretation of the tone) and it cited both the statute and a quote from an opinion "by the Texas Attorney General". Honestly I took that at face value to mean that an AG Opinion was in place but I never applied my usual practice of obtaining a reference and completely reading its context.

I know you asked me what time it was and I have told you how I built my watch...I probably should have qualified that statement at least pending a reproducible reference. So please forgive the impudence of my assertion and I'll see if I can find the actual reference.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I am too tired to run it down, but I seem to recall a 2005? opinion (or maybe a statement in answer to inquiry) that "clarified" that statute and explained that municipalities could not restrict access to its facilities or properties of those persons that have CHL's and carry concealed handguns.

OK. Acvtually the law was changed in 2005 so as to ban any "government entity" from restricting concealed carry on any property it "owns or leases" except for specific places listed in the statute.

What is not clear, at least to me, is whether a private entity that leases property from a government entity (which owns it) can restrict concealed carry via 30.06.

Chas says no they can't. If the government owns the property, the private entity that leases it cannot enforceably post it 30.06. But I think he also said that the statute could use clarification through the legislative process.

It's certainly unclear to me. And I know for my own part, if I ever find myself at a place owned by the government and leased by a private entity that is posted 30.06, I will honor the 30.06 signs until it is clearly established (to me) that it is OK to do otherwise.

Others are of course free to do as they wish, and live with any results or consequences.