Desired CHL Reform

[gigag04]

The same carry rules for a CHL on vacation as a LEO on vacation.

Huh? Are you referring to LEOSA?

No, but that would be the right thing to do with LEOSA, like LEAA and others promised.

I was assuming Texas reform so consider for example two people from Houston, one CHL and one LEO, both on vacation in San Antonio. My desired reform would have the same carry rules apply to both of them.

I'm still not following - the same carry rules don't apply to them in their home towns. Off duty LEO carry is totally different ball game than CHL carry - Good/Bad/Otherwise it is different sections of the PC.

[HGWC]

How about some reform in recognition of the upcoming supreme court ruling on the McDonald case? They're going to rule for incorporation of the 2nd amendment. Surely we can use that ruling to leverage reform from our legislature. Why not start with 46.02?

If the federal government ever passed a law like this, how could it ever survive any standard of scrutiny in a court challenge?

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.

If a federal law like that couldn't survive, how can Texas continue to get away with it after a ruling for incorporation?

[boomerang]

I'm still not following

Sorry.

Off duty LEO carry is totally different ball game than CHL carry

That's why it's called reform.

[Mike from Texas]

There are 3 issues I want to see AT LEAST debated and ideally passed in this upcoming Legislative session:

1). Parking lot bill
2). Campus carry
3). Open Carry. Just make it an available endorsement on the current CHL, just like the motorcycle endorsement on your DL. Doesn't mean you have to do it, but it would be nice to have the option.

[RHenriksen]

Here's a thought - it's not as sexy or compelling as campus carry, OC, or the parking lot bill, but it would be worthwhile nonetheless:

language cleanup!

Not *changes* to the existing statutes, but fixing the godawful convoluted wording that causes so much confusion to lay people and LEOs alike.

For instance, church carry. The statute says 'places where carry is prohibited: aaaaaa, bbbbb, *churches*, ddddd, etc'. You have to read much further down to discover, oh! but churches have post to a 30.06 like everyone else. No wonder there's so much confusion (and potential LEO hassles) because of this poor language.

Why not float a bill which modifies the statute to clean up this kind of thing? Remove 'churches' completely from the section that lists prohibits places for CHLs.

[Bart]

Am I not the only one, who is optimistic about our chances, after the Nov. elections to get more favorable CHL Legislation? I’m optimistic that we are going to have a far more conservative legislature, next time they meet.

If so, what’s at the top of your list?

Easier:
Exempt from 46.02 even if we're not carrying the plastic. (lost/stolen wallet, forgot it at home)
Exempt from 46.02 even if we're not carrying the plastic or carrying a handgun.
Reduced penalty (Class C misd or civil fine) for 46.035(a)

Difficult:
Repeal 46.035
Make licensees exempt from 46.02
Make licensees exempt from 46.02 and 46.03

Wish List:
Repeal all of 46

[AustinBoy]

My biggest concern is parking lot carry.
I work for a large corporation.
If by some wierd chance they learned that I had a gun in my car, they would fire me because it is policy not because they want to.
Because they are so large, they treat major policy violations as Zero Tolerance.
Changing the law would prevent this and allow me carry to and from work.

Ty

[The Annoyed Man]

Just to play devil's advocate (which for those of you who don't know who the devil is, simply means I'm trying to poke holes in what follows to see if it makes sense or not, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe what I'm going to write next...):

I am all for property rights. I'm a big believer in property rights. I respect property rights and protect my own property rights strongly. BUT ... my natural right of self defense trumps ANYONE's property rights EVERY time.

That works for me until you cross my property line, which I may bar you from doing any time I please. You don't have an automatic right of access to my property. You only have access to it on my forbearance. That means that, on my property, I set the rules. On your property, you set the rules. But you don't get to set the rules on my property, and I don't get to set the rules on yours.

Just like the rights of the handicapped to access an open-to-the-public business trump the rights of the property owner to not be forced to alter his building to accomodate them. That is the best analogy for CHL rights trumping property rights ... the ADA.

Aaahhh... but the handicapped person has no choice in the matter of being handicapped, therefore the requirement to modify your property, which you have decided to make accessible to all the public, simply gives the handicapped person the same ability to access as you or I enjoy — whereas you can simply choose to disarm if you want to access the building. Think of all the racists who were forced to take down their "no coloreds allowed" signs (a forced modification of private property) in order to allow public access to people of color, who have no choice in the matter of their color, so that they would have the same access as white people. It's kind of like that.

OTH, you may bar someone from your home based on the color of their skin if you were so benighted a fool as to be like that.

As to the liability issue, there is no law that I am aware of that says you have to assume responsibility for my safety if I enter your property. I enter at my own risk. There are, however, laws which allow me to sue you for having failed to make your property safe enough. Thus, we have an entire class of lawyers who specialize in nothing but personal injury lawsuits. Therefore, you carry insurance against the possibility that I might slip and fall on your property, or... get shot on your property... because you failed to maintain safe conditions.

Now, I personally would prefer that my CHL permits me to go anywhere I want to while carrying — including bars, courthouses, and the White House. But, I don't think I am able to overcome the above objections in a way that still preserves the rights of property owners, who, after all, do have some rights in the matter.

[texas1234]

Here's a thought - it's not as sexy or compelling as campus carry, OC, or the parking lot bill, but it would be worthwhile nonetheless:

language cleanup!

Not *changes* to the existing statutes, but fixing the godawful convoluted wording that causes so much confusion to lay people and LEOs alike.

For instance, church carry. The statute says 'places where carry is prohibited: aaaaaa, bbbbb, *churches*, ddddd, etc'. You have to read much further down to discover, oh! but churches have post to a 30.06 like everyone else. No wonder there's so much confusion (and potential LEO hassles) because of this poor language.

Why not float a bill which modifies the statute to clean up this kind of thing? Remove 'churches' completely from the section that lists prohibits places for CHLs.

Any bill I have ever seen that clearly states its objective in laymens terms gets shot to pieces. Doesnt mean there isnt one out there, it just means language clean up is not that feasible or easy to do. Any bill I have ever worked on or read, the wording is the key and its why penal codes come out like they do. You will have a bunch of folks beat up language in a bill based on what they want their outcome to be and how they think the courts will interpret the language. Thats why laws end up written like they are. Its why we have judges and attorneys, its their job to interpret the law, and it is why precadents are also important, those type cases set a precadent as to how law has been interpretted in the past, its why attorneys argue before the Supreme Court. My point is dont hold your breath on language clean up, these things are written that way because you have a lot of special interest or points of view focusing on wording and how wording will be interpreted.

[texas1234]

Also one more point how wording and language is written in bills/penal Codes works for both sides good and bad. About four years ago we spent 4 weeks working on changing one sentence in a bill based on only 4 of the words in a sentence, it eventually got changed and the attorneys working on it felt comfortable that the courts would interpret the change to our benefit should it ever come up in court. It was a compromise for both sides and both sides got what they wanted or at least were satisfied with the outcome to a reasonable degree, but it didnt mean the sentence was easy to read or clearly articulated its point.

[Ol Zeke]

I’m Semi-OK with “no carry at work”. I don’t like it, but I gotta eat.
I’m not OK with being subject to the loss of my job if I leave it in my vehicle, in the parking lot!

I’m OK with not carrying in a courthouse. I’m more concerned with the walk to and from my parked vehicle. However, CHL’s could have made a positive difference in every case of a shooting in a courthouse. So it’s stupid, but I’m OK with it.

I’m OK with not carrying in the Post Office. Again, stupid, but I’m OK with it. I just don’t go to the Post Office any more than absolutely necessary.

‘Campus Carry’ is a No-Brainer. It’s not an issue with me (yet) but there are way too many wack-jobs on our campuses.

I am not OK with the fact that I must be unarmed at any of my grandchildren’s school functions. Schools have a ‘Bullseye’ painted on them and, like Churches, are prime target for wack-jobs. No child is in danger because I am carrying.

I’m not OK with going unarmed into a bar. I don’t frequent bars (the beer’s cheaper at home) but if I need to go into one, there is no place I can think of where I would be more likely to need to defend myself (miss-spent youth?). I do not drink enough to become impaired, even at home. I certainly wouldn’t, while in that kind of atmosphere.

I’m not OK with the fact that I can carry a .45 on my hip but not a knife in my boot or a retractable baton, in places I can’t carry the .45. That’s insane!

Cost for above oppinion - $0.02

[ScottDLS]

Just to play devil's advocate (which for those of you who don't know who the devil is, simply means I'm trying to poke holes in what follows to see if it makes sense or not, but doesn't necessarily mean I believe what I'm going to write next...):

I am all for property rights. I'm a big believer in property rights. I respect property rights and protect my own property rights strongly. BUT ... my natural right of self defense trumps ANYONE's property rights EVERY time.

That works for me until you cross my property line, which I may bar you from doing any time I please. You don't have an automatic right of access to my property. You only have access to it on my forbearance. That means that, on my property, I set the rules. On your property, you set the rules. But you don't get to set the rules on my property, and I don't get to set the rules on yours.

My only quibble with this is that you don't automatically have the right to have the State enforce your "rules" via criminal sanction. You can make me leave if I violate your rules and you know about it. But breaking your list of rules isn't automatically a crime.

Just like the rights of the handicapped to access an open-to-the-public business trump the rights of the property owner to not be forced to alter his building to accomodate them. That is the best analogy for CHL rights trumping property rights ... the ADA.

Aaahhh... but the handicapped person has no choice in the matter of being handicapped, therefore the requirement to modify your property, which you have decided to make accessible to all the public, simply gives the handicapped person the same ability to access as you or I enjoy — whereas you can simply choose to disarm if you want to access the building. Think of all the racists who were forced to take down their "no coloreds allowed" signs (a forced modification of private property) in order to allow public access to people of color, who have no choice in the matter of their color, so that they would have the same access as white people. It's kind of like that.

The State has the power to set conditions on your operation of a business that require you to allow access to certain groups, even if the individual has control over their status as a member of that group. You can't bar people from your public business due to religion, though presumably people have control over the religion they subscribe to.

Your private property rights are strongly protected by the State, but not absolute.

[SwimFan85]

The State has the power to set conditions on your operation of a business that require you to allow access to certain groups, even if the individual has control over their status as a member of that group. You can't bar people from your public business due to religion, though presumably people have control over the religion they subscribe to.

If a business can ban concealed handguns, they should also be able to ban possession of phones, bibles, head scarves, foreign currency even if concealed, Obama bumper stickers on cars, pants, or any other inanimate object.

[DallasCHL]

Am I not the only one, who is optimistic about our chances, after the Nov. elections to get more favorable CHL Legislation? I’m optimistic that we are going to have a far more conservative legislature, next time they meet.

If so, what’s at the top of your list?

Do away with “Gun Free Zones”?

Eliminate 30.06? (Did you know there are states who’s CHL statutes prohibit businesses from forbidding CCW?)

Make it a CWL? (Does anyone else find it totally ludicrous that we can carry a concealed handgun but not a boot knife?)

Your thoughts?

I do not anticipate a huge swing in the make-up of the Texas Legislature. I hope we can pick up the five (5) House seats that went from Republican to Democrat in the 2008 election. If we get more then that's even better.

I know of at least one seat that will stay D but no longer be anti.

[ericlw]

i like the park lot bill stuff, but really i think if you shoot someone and the state finds you not guilt then no one should be to sue you civally.