Who's for less Prohibited places?

[Morgan]

That's stupid. I figured it was something like that, but that's stupid. Why not just REMOVE the clauses that don't apply?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm TOTALLY confused. The way I'm reading that, B4, B5, B6 and C all have to be properly posted 30.06, is that what I'm understanding? If that's the case, why are they even listed?

The notice pursuant to TPC §30.06 was added as a separate provision for tactical reasons. That was how to get it passed when repeal of those subsections was not politically possible. Remember, this was done in 1997 only two years after the CHL statute had passed and only about 1.5 yrs since CHLs were actually "hitting the streets." The blood-in-the-streets crowd was still predicting gloom and doom.

Chas.

[Purplehood]

Sometimes you gotta fight stupid with stupid. It can't be helped.

[Morgan]

Amen to THAT. :)

It just leads to a lot of misunderstanding.

[KBCraig]

Places off limits by statute: none, especially not private property.
- This means parimutuel race tracks, sporting venues, and bars would enjoy the same status as any other private property: free to ban carry, or not.

Places allowed to be posted as off-limits by trespass law: all private property.
- But the penalty should be reduced to a maximum $50 fine, and no loss of license.

Governmental places allowed to be off-limits by local policy: secure areas of correctional facilities, and secure courtrooms (not undefined "courthouses"!)
- Allowed, but not mandated by statute; wardens, sheriffs, and judges should be free to secure their facilities, and simply deny entrance to anyone who can't pass the security screening point. No statutory penalty, just no admittance.

Secure area of airports, etc., are already covered by federal law. There is no need to replicate the federal law within the Texas statutes. If the federal law miraculously disappeared, the private property owners (the airlines) would still be able to ban carry past their security checkpoint (the TSA having vanished, hopefully).

[mr.72]

So to disagree about everyone's private property thing ... I think the private property rights I have to my own clothing and items I carry on my person has to trump the private property rights of the owner of a building or other property. It's intrusive and an invasion of privacy for you to even know whether I am carrying a gun or any other thing when I enter your property, unless I am carrying it openly.

Now, the problem of course with all of this parking lot provision talk is it still requires you to travel from your car to the no-guns premises unarmed, and it is clear that this trip from the car to the building and back are times when you are at greatest risk of property crime. The odds are I am not going to be at risk of a crime, for example, while IN a hospital. However walking from my car into the hospital building is a different story.

As for bars, you know I really don't drink but sometimes I play a gig in a bar. I don't really like being in there unarmed, mostly it's not in the bar but it's the trip from my car, with my gear in tow, to the bar and back again. Load-in is often from an alley or sometimes multiple alleys to walk to the car.

Amusement parks? Sporting events? Concerts? That walk I do from my car to the AT&T Center for a Spurs game is probably just about the highest risk of mugging that I ever endure. Forcing me to leave the gun in the car is asinine. This is why I have cheap guns, BTW. It's far and away the most valuable thing in my car! I am no big fan of going from Fiesta Texas parking lot to the park and back again at closing time unarmed. To not leave my gun in my car would require me to make the whole trip from Austin unarmed. This is ridiculous.

Quite frankly, the law as it is currently written makes no sense and does absolutely nothing to promote safety or safe gun handling and storage. I mentioned before the requirement that you disarm in the car is also forcing you to break the law by intentionally failing to conceal, and you raise the risk of a criminal getting access to a gun by leaving the gun in your car where a smash-n-grab is going to find it.

Parking provisions don't fix any of this!

So I am firmly on the side of "concealed is concealed". If my gun is concealed then it should not be prohibited anywhere.

[Purplehood]

Now, the problem of course with all of this parking lot provision talk is it still requires you to travel from your car to the no-guns premises unarmed, and it is clear that this trip from the car to the building and back are times when you are at greatest risk of property crime. The odds are I am not going to be at risk of a crime, for example, while IN a hospital. However walking from my car into the hospital building is a different story.

I have to disagree on the Hospital statement.

My former sister-in-law was downtown at Hermann Memorial and ended up being stalked by some humongously large male on a weekend (when the place can downright be empty).

She had enough sense to look for people and turned around to confront the guy while she was in a crowd of Doctors. The guy looked her in the eye and announced "Look, she is afraid of me"! At that point the doctors all circled the wagons and escorted her to the parking garage and made sure that she got off safely. Apparently the guy is a frequent traveller in the hospital hallways.

The whole time I was there, I never saw any form of security (on the weekend).

[mr.72]

I have to disagree on the Hospital statement.

Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, it does not bolster the counterpoint.

I say: posting 30.06 in any building requires me to leave the gun in my car which reduces safety in the following ways:
1. I risk displaying my gun while disarming in the car to a thief or other criminal, thus alerting them to the gun's presence in my vacated car
2. my gun stored in my car is always at risk of being stolen. Nobody is going to commit a crime using my car stereo or iPod stolen from my car but the gun is a whole different matter. It should remain on my person at all times.
3. I am at greater risk when going from the car into said 30.06 building than I am while driving in my car. The whole point of carrying to begin with is to defend myself when I am at greatest risk, so requiring me to disarm in the car is tantamount to requiring me to leave the gun at home

Certainly I think having the gun on my person at all times is best, even inside a hospital.

[Purplehood]

Actually it has about as much standing as your assertion.

[mr.72]

Actually it has about as much standing as your assertion.

Dude, I don't know what you are arguing with. But I guess you win!

[srothstein]

Well, on a philosophical basis, I might agree to one prohibited place, but only one. And I really do think that is best handled in other ways. The place I am thinking of is the polling place. It is critical that we do not allow anyone to intimidate others while voting. But I think the better way to handle that is through better laws and enforcement on intimidation.

The only place I do support any restrictions is private property. If I own the property, I get to say what goes on there. This is probably the single point on which more of us will disagree than any other. But that is my take on it, even though I can see some merit to the other side of the issue. And if I do restrict, it should be the same as any other trespass case. The mere fact that you had a weapon on you at the time should not upgrade the case (as it does now). I prefer to see any of our laws of this type changed to if you USE the weapon (either actual force or threat of force) and not just carry it.

But, I also agree with Jim that as a practical matter, these are not going to change soon. If we can get the one change I think is most needed through during this session, I will be happy with that step. We need to define educational instittuion as a public primary or secondary school (private is already eligible for 30.06 so it should be enough). We also need to calrify, as part of this, what is meant by a school activity on grounds and exactly where that applies.

Later on, we can work on more changes, but if we keep getting one or two through per session, with no losses, our children should be free again. We might be, but that would be a good legacy.

[mr.72]

This will all be a moot point if BHO makes good on his promise to ban concealed carry nationally.

This whole game we have to play about where we can and can't carry, disarming in parking lots, parking in a remote lot so we can disarm in some places, re-arming when we get back to the car, etc. is ridiculous.

A few years ago an ex-mayor of Austin managed to wreck his bicycle while he was not wearing a helmet. After that point he became a zealous advocate of laws requiring people to wear helmets while riding a bicycle (which is, of course, ridiculous). Where was he before this? I mean, it went from being so unimportant that he chose not to even wear one for his own safety, to suddenly so important that we needed a law to make everyone wear one no matter what. This is par for the course for politicians. Unfortunately I think it will require some politician or other power broker to become a victim of violent crime in place prohibiting concealed carry before we will really see any movement in the law.

[seamusTX]

The place I am thinking of is the polling place. It is critical that we do not allow anyone to intimidate others while voting. But I think the better way to handle that is through better laws and enforcement on intimidation.

Voter intimidation is already a crime, whether it is done with a handgun, a shotgun, a pitchfork, or verbally.

I can't find it as a specific crime in the Texas statutes, but it would fall under assault, disorderly conduct, or deadly conduct. In the case of a CHL holder, it would also be a class A misdemeanor offense to intentionally fail to conceal the handgun.

For these reasons, I think the statutory restriction is unnecessary.

Of course, with the majority of polling places being in schools or courthouses, it's not much of an issue.

- Jim

[nitrogen]

This will all be a moot point if BHO makes good on his promise to ban concealed carry nationally.

Barak Obama has made no statements or promises in his campaign to ban concealed carry nationwide, other than his support of it previous to his campaign.

If you use this reasoning, then McCain also supports an assault weapons ban.

[Purplehood]

And his previous statements referred to "national carry", not just concealed.