TexasCHLforum.com

smoothoperator wrote:I don't understand the urge to clarify something that's already crystal clear. I think it would be like spending effort to push through a law that says people can't be arrested for drunk driving if they're not operating a vehicle.

I guess I'm not simply good enough at explaining myself, my apologies.

Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?

baldeagle wrote:Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?

So I guess you didn't read the rest of this thread?

Jumping Frog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?

So I guess you didn't read the rest of this thread?

Well, call me a pessimist, but after the last session, I don't hold out much hope for campus carry ever passing. Too many politicians with no guts get elected.

baldeagle wrote:Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?

Not at all. Only a small percentage of bills are pre-filed prior to the beginning of the legislative session. A campus-carry bill will be filed.

Chas.

I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

They say that banning CC is all about "safety" after all... right? Let's force them to be "extra safe".

I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)

AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)

Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.

Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)

Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.

I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?

AJSully421 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)

Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.

I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?

Here's the link to the thread from 2011 Legislative Session. Not sure if it answers your entire question, but lots of info on both sides there.

AJSully421 wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.

Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.

I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another. Now removing the penalty for 30.06 or lessening it to simple trespass, that I can understand. In fact I think the state has already required business owners to go to great lengths to prevent concealed carry on their premises. That is necessary to ensure CHL were properly notified and understood the desire of the business owner.

But imposing government penalties against those property owners that want to choose what happens on their property (legally), that I think is a very slippery slope I'd rather the government stay out of.

AJSully421 wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.

Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.

wrong...

IF I have a business and IF for some reason I choose to put up a legal sign, that is MY choice as a business owner...it is YOUR choice as a customer to do business with me or with my competition. There is absolutely NO business on this planet that has NO competition anywhere, it may be inconvenient, but you can do it.

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.

Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.

I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another. Now removing the penalty for 30.06 or lessening it to simple trespass, that I can understand. In fact I think the state has already required business owners to go to great lengths to prevent concealed carry on their premises. That is necessary to ensure CHL were properly notified and understood the desire of the business owner.

But imposing government penalties against those property owners that want to choose what happens on their property (legally), that I think is a very slippery slope I'd rather the government stay out of.

This proposed security guard mandate seems eerily familiar to the federally mandated healthcare plan that dictates the type and scope of coverage that an employer will soon be compelled to provide for its employees. I don't think that's somewhere we really want to go as it would presumably invite more government participation into private enterprise. However, I do like the idea of reducing the 30.06 penalty to a simple trespass! That way 'concealed means concealed' could be meaningfully applied.

AJSully421 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)

Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.

I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?

You already said the bill would have altered "every CHL law" so I don't think we need any more examples.