TexasCHLforum.com

Heartland Patriot wrote:I personally do not care one little bit about not carrying into an actual knock-back-shots-of-booze bar...what I do care about is carrying at college, which I will be attending again soon for more technical courses...and like tonight, having to disarm to go into a hospital, among other things. This is an EXCELLENT idea of a bill and I would be overjoyed were it to pass.

Even if the bill Charles has drafted does pass a hospital will still be able to prohibit us with a proper 30.06 sign. I don't think anyone is going to try and change that. My doctor's office is in an urgent care center that is not posted. They still have the old signs, but if they post a 30.06 I'll be looking for a new doc. I have yet to see an actual hospital that is not posted here in the Dallas area and fortunately, I haven't needed one.

Perhaps. If done right, it may come down to whether the hospital property is owned or leased by a governmental entity.

C-dub wrote:Even if the bill Charles has drafted does pass a hospital will still be able to prohibit us with a proper 30.06 sign. I don't think anyone is going to try and change that. My doctor's office is in an urgent care center that is not posted. They still have the old signs, but if they post a 30.06 I'll be looking for a new doc. I have yet to see an actual hospital that is not posted here in the Dallas area and fortunately, I haven't needed one.

If that's true, then the bill accomplishes nothing. Hospitals already have this power.

baldeagle wrote:

C-dub wrote:Even if the bill Charles has drafted does pass a hospital will still be able to prohibit us with a proper 30.06 sign. I don't think anyone is going to try and change that. My doctor's office is in an urgent care center that is not posted. They still have the old signs, but if they post a 30.06 I'll be looking for a new doc. I have yet to see an actual hospital that is not posted here in the Dallas area and fortunately, I haven't needed one.

If that's true, then the bill accomplishes nothing. Hospitals already have this power.

Well, IIRC, Charles has stated that they will not trample upon the private property's owners' rights. So, I must admit I'm not entirely sure what we will be gaining. Maybe it will mostly be schools. IDK

shootthesheet wrote:

oldtexan wrote:Charles,

Are you at liberty to discuss whether the legislation being drafted/considered addresses concealed carry on the premises of educational institutions?

Thanks.

Sorry, I missed this post. I can't discuss it until it's filed; it's still subject to changes.

Chas.

C-dub wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

C-dub wrote:Even if the bill Charles has drafted does pass a hospital will still be able to prohibit us with a proper 30.06 sign. I don't think anyone is going to try and change that. My doctor's office is in an urgent care center that is not posted. They still have the old signs, but if they post a 30.06 I'll be looking for a new doc. I have yet to see an actual hospital that is not posted here in the Dallas area and fortunately, I haven't needed one.

If that's true, then the bill accomplishes nothing. Hospitals already have this power.

Well, IIRC, Charles has stated that they will not trample upon the private property's owners' rights. So, I must admit I'm not entirely sure what we will be gaining. Maybe it will mostly be schools. IDK

Are you guys kidding? You need to read TPC §46.03 and 46.035. The only thing that will remain from TPC §46.035 will be 1) concealment; 2) bars; and 3) intoxication. All of 46.03 will be gone for Texas CHL's.

Chas.

In 46.03 we have ...
1. schools & educational institutions
2. polling places
3. courts & offices
4. racetracks
5. secured area of airports
6. within 1,000 feet of execution place on day of execution

Any of these places would be great, but #1 would be incredible. Wow! I just re-read you post that all of 4.03 would be gone. I'm not sure how that would work with #5 since they don't allow anyone past the security checkpoint without a boarding pass and they are not going to allow me to fly with my concealed weapon.


And in 46.035 we have ...
1. 51% places
2. high school, college, & pro sporting events
3. correctional facility
4. hospitals
5. amusement parks
6. churches

We already have 4-6 in 46.035. 51% places have already been ruled out and I doubt correctional facilities will be eliminated, but adding #2 from 46.035 would be really nice.

Thank you Charles for not letting me be lazy and challenging me to look these up myself. No sarcasm intended.

Edited to add the blue text.

C-dub wrote:In 46.03 we have ...
1. schools & educational institutions
2. polling places
3. courts & offices
4. racetracks
5. secured area of airports
6. within 1,000 feet of execution place on day of execution

Any of these places would be great, but #1 would be incredible. Wow! I just re-read you post that all of 4.03 would be gone. I'm not sure how that would work with #5 since they don't allow anyone past the security checkpoint without a boarding pass and they are not going to allow me to fly with my concealed weapon.


And in 46.035 we have ...
1. 51% places
2. high school, college, & pro sporting events
3. correctional facility
4. hospitals
5. amusement parks
6. churches

We already have 4-6 in 46.035. 51% places have already been ruled out and I doubt correctional facilities will be eliminated, but adding #2 from 46.035 would be really nice.

Thank you Charles for not letting me be lazy and challenging me to look these up myself. No sarcasm intended.

Edited to add the blue text.

With the airport, the main difference in my mind is it would no longer be a (state) criminal offense if you did happen to attempt to carry into the secured area of an airport with a CHL. So very little gained overall because as you said, they're not letting you back there with a gun.

And Professional Sporting events should be allowed..........
Another very large Killing Field.

mojo84 wrote:I too would like to see the actual data for law enforcement officers.

I also suspect the data would reflect quite a bit of variance by location and agency. Thinking New York, Chicago etc.

I think he specified TX peace Officers

He did. I would like to see those just out of curiosity.

AEA wrote:And Professional Sporting events should be allowed..........
Another very large Killing Field.

"The only way to stop bad guys with guns is to have good guys with guns." -Wayne LaPierre

I will let people know the results when I get the data necessary to create an updated comparison for LEOs. I spoke with the person who processes Open Record Requests and she seems very helpful and eager to get the information to me timely.

Perhaps I should point out a couple of facts. First, no one should interpret my comments as indicating that the LEO community has a bad track record in terms of criminal convictions. That's not the case. Unless the updated data has changed dramatically, I expect to see that LEOs still have an excellent record, just as it was in 2007. I just point out that Texas CHLs have an even better record.

Secondly, I do not intend to publish the data because I know some intellectually dishonest people (a/k/a anti-gunners) will try to drive a wedge between the LEO community and gun owners by claiming we/I are/am attacking them by publishing data. I will give the overall ratios for LEOs.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RedRaider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:I like it. Especially the idea of turning the question around -

The question should not be “why would you need a handgun,” it should be “is there a compelling reason to exclude handguns?”

I do have one question and one point to add.

The question: If there is already a prohibition against being intoxicated while carrying concealed, why continue to exclued concealed carry in 51% establishments?

It won't pass without keeping bars off-limits.

TexasCajun wrote:And my one point: Requiring a CHL holder to disarm before entering a prohibited place actually creates more of a public safety issue. When my gun is holstered & concealed, the chance of a negligent discharge is virtually non-existant. However, when I have to unconceal and unholster my weapon to put it in secure storage, the risk of a negligent discharge goes up significantly due to the very nature of having to handle the weapon. Then re-arming after leaving the prohibited place again increases the ND risk. In these circumstances the ND risk is even higher because the weapon-handling is usually taking place in cramped & seated position within a car. Even re-holstering a micro-compact 9mm pistol IWB puts the CHL'er in an awkward, contorting position.

We really don't want to argue that every time a CHL takes his/her gun out of a holster, we are risking an accidental discharge. We know what the opposition will be saying.

Chas.

How about looking at it a different way. Having to leave your gun in the car causes more of a public safety issue as it is no longer under your control and could potentially be stolen by a criminal? Just food for thought.

Carrying in bars will never pass, regardless how it's packaged or creative one is in coming up with sound bites. I'm not willing to risk the entire bill trying to convince Senators, Representatives and the general public that alcohol and guns do mix, in spite of what every responsible gun owner has said for a hundred years.

Come on guys; we're talking about a sea change in Texas law and you're upset because you won't be able to carry in a bar?

Chas.

I agree with you. Bars should not be a deal breaker.

RHenriksen wrote:Frustrating that the law requires a response in ten days, but apparently has no teeth in the event an agency takes 30x that long?

It goes to show you how law abiding they really are, no matter what numbers they cook up.