TexasCHLforum.com

I'm part of the "tin-foil hat" crowd so you know what I voted for!!!

Jumping Frog wrote:In PC §46.15 - Nonapplicability:

Move (b)(6) dealing with CHL's from (b) to (a), placing them in the same category as LEO's, and making PC §46.02 and PC §46.03 non-applicable to CHL's.

That would leave PC §46.035 still applying to CHL's, but it sets up the next session (2015) to have a bill allowing unlicensed open carry while adapting PC §46.035 to apply only to unlicensed open carry (thereby removing CHL's from PC §46.035).

+1!!!!

steveincowtown wrote:

Reds45ACP wrote: Not on the list but it would be nice: Stricter rules regarding the placement of 30.06 and 51% signs. I will happily obey these but I hate going places where they are placed in some out of the way location where I am already into an establishment and breaking the rules.

Hey if we a dreaming here, eliminate 30.06, and have the law written so that Gun Busters signs mean nothing, except that you may be asked to leave the property if seen with a gun. If you do not leave the property it would be a simple (non firearms related) trespass charge.

This would be similar to what some other states have, and would set us up for success with Open Carry in future sessions.

Although I understand what the thinking was at the time (or at least believe I do) 30.06 has run its course and will need be eliminated or majorly retrofitted for us to move forward on other issues.

30.06 is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. It literately saved the CHL program and it still does today. It also prevents governmental agencies from banning armed CHL's from entering government owned property.

Also, the legislature would never support a bill that made it impossible to prohibit people from entering private property, forcing property owners to verbally tell each and every person they don't want on their property to leave. We have two choices, TPC §30.05 (any sign works) or TPC §30.06 (nothing but the "big ugly sign" works).

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:I find something odd. The answer with the least number of responses, making renewals easier, is precisely what the first two pre-filed bills address. I'm pretty sure if I had made the poll a "pick one" poll, it would have few if any people making it their top priority.

HB47 doesn't deal with renewals; it lowers the time required for the first-time applicants from 10 hrs to 4 hrs. HB48 removes the requirement to take a renewal class to renew a CHL.

Chas.

johnferg69 wrote:I'm part of the "tin-foil hat" crowd so you know what I voted for!!!

The "tin foil hat crowd" are those that say "if you don't agree with me 100%, that means you are anti-RKBA." Is that what you mean?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:I'm part of the "tin-foil hat" crowd so you know what I voted for!!!

The "tin foil hat crowd" are those that say "if you don't agree with me 100%, that means you are anti-RKBA." Is that what you mean?

Chas.

What I mean is that I believe in Constitutional Carry and support Open Carry if the law is written responsibly.

Suppose it becomes legal to open carry in Texas, like it is in a majority of the states. Why would any change to 30.05 or 30.06 be required? Wouldn't the same signs or other notice that a property owner currently uses to prohibit someone carrying an AK or shotgun apply automatically to openly carried handguns? The defense to prosecution for weapons in 30.05 only applies if someone is carrying a concealed handgun. (LEO get nonapplicability.)

30.05 (f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun was forbidden; and
(2) the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying.

At a medical office building which is posted 30.06, one currently can choose to open carry an ak-47, or carry it concealed ... I choose concealed carry for AK-47 as it's less likely to get even more signs posted by the easily frightened yet misinformed liberal property owner who figured 30.06 signs protected him until someone walks in open carrying an AK ...

I'm a "never show your hole card" guy ... as in forgiveness is easier to get than asking permission. Hey, bank manager ... you mind if I carry what YOU call an assault rifle around in your bank, it's legal but you made me leave mt concealed handgun in the car ... sometimes concealed is 100% better than open carry if the goal is to be legally armed and able to perform self protection, rat5her than try to make political statements that we "should be allowed to" which is true, but I'd rather be safe than make political statements to private property owners.

I carry now 2 Glocks daily with 51 rounds of ammo ... I do not need or want everyone knowing that.
I prefer a Jackie Chan look than a Rambo/Charles Atlas look, yet am able to take care of myself without some idiot wanting to challenge me to see who is badder/faster/stronger whatever.

I like 30.06 law, if we reverted to "any old sign will prohibit *firearms*" under 30.05 then I couldn't carry my AK either and would only get my Kimber Pepper Blaster and knife ... and maybe a pistol crossbow ...

Good idea RPB. A concealed AK underfolder (bag, etc.) is also a good choice for 51% bars where concealed handguns are prohibited.

RPB wrote:At a medical office building which is posted 30.06, one currently can choose to open carry an ak-47, or carry it concealed ... I choose concealed carry for AK-47 as it's less likely to get even more signs posted by the easily frightened yet misinformed liberal property owner who figured 30.06 signs protected him until someone walks in open carrying an AK ...

I'm a "never show your hole card" guy ... as in forgiveness is easier to get than asking permission. Hey, bank manager ... you mind if I carry what YOU call an assault rifle around in your bank, it's legal but you made me leave mt concealed handgun in the car ... sometimes concealed is 100% better than open carry if the goal is to be legally armed and able to perform self protection, rat5her than try to make political statements that we "should be allowed to" which is true, but I'd rather be safe than make political statements to private property owners.

I carry now 2 Glocks daily with 51 rounds of ammo ... I do not need or want everyone knowing that.
I prefer a Jackie Chan look than a Rambo/Charles Atlas look, yet am able to take care of myself without some idiot wanting to challenge me to see who is badder/faster/stronger whatever.

I like 30.06 law, if we reverted to "any old sign will prohibit *firearms*" under 30.05 then I couldn't carry my AK either and would only get my Kimber Pepper Blaster and knife ... and maybe a pistol crossbow ...

You really don't think that if we had open carry in Texas that it would result in "I'mma callin' you out, varmint" sort of situations, do you? If it did, wouldn't they have already had that happen, in such states as Arizona, and wouldn't the liberal media have blasted it daily and nightly? I can completely understand the worry about business owners putting up signs to block ALL carry, but I do NOT worry about folks "challenging" me. If that isn't what you meant, I apologize, but I have seen and heard some folks say it will lead to that.

I wish I could have allocated all 3 of my votes to campus carry. That's the only place I go regularly where I have to disarm. Worse, it's for no rational reason - only Bradyesque hysteria. Le sigh.

tbrown wrote:Good idea RPB. A concealed AK underfolder (bag, etc.) is also a good choice for 51% bars where concealed handguns are prohibited.

I believe 51% covers all weapons concealed and unconcealed.

steveincowtown wrote:I believe 51% covers all weapons concealed and unconcealed.

GC §411.204(c) would disagree with you.

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Jumping Frog wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:I believe 51% covers all weapons concealed and unconcealed.

GC §411.204(c) would disagree with you.

(c) The sign required under Subsections (a) and (b) must give notice in both English and Spanish that it is unlawful for a person licensed under this subchapter to carry a handgun on the premises. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and must include on its face the number "51" printed in solid red at least five inches in height. The sign shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Pay attention to part a ("GC §411.204. NOTICE REQUIRED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.
(a) A business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, and that derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code, shall prominently display at each entrance to the business premises a sign that complies with the requirements of Subsection (c)."), this is where most places mess up.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

Reds45ACP wrote: Not on the list but it would be nice: Stricter rules regarding the placement of 30.06 and 51% signs. I will happily obey these but I hate going places where they are placed in some out of the way location where I am already into an establishment and breaking the rules.

Hey if we a dreaming here, eliminate 30.06, and have the law written so that Gun Busters signs mean nothing, except that you may be asked to leave the property if seen with a gun. If you do not leave the property it would be a simple (non firearms related) trespass charge.

This would be similar to what some other states have, and would set us up for success with Open Carry in future sessions.

Although I understand what the thinking was at the time (or at least believe I do) 30.06 has run its course and will need be eliminated or majorly retrofitted for us to move forward on other issues.

30.06 is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. It literately saved the CHL program and it still does today. It also prevents governmental agencies from banning armed CHL's from entering government owned property.

Also, the legislature would never support a bill that made it impossible to prohibit people from entering private property, forcing property owners to verbally tell each and every person they don't want on their property to leave. We have two choices, TPC §30.05 (any sign works) or TPC §30.06 (nothing but the "big ugly sign" works).

Chas.

I would take 30.06 and change (c)(B)(ii) from "inch" to "foot". That's right... 1 foot high letters, in english and spanish. Just to screw with them, I would sneak it into some unrelated bill about puppies or kittens... or children.