TexasCHLforum.com

KLB wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

OK, then a legislatively imposed remedy that the trespass charge will not stand. You ought to have notice when you book your room, not when you stagger into the motel after a long day on the road.

I would rather the statute just provide an explicit exemption under 30.06/30.07 for those staying at the hotel.

TexasTornado wrote:

KLB wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

OK, then a legislatively imposed remedy that the trespass charge will not stand. You ought to have notice when you book your room, not when you stagger into the motel after a long day on the road.

I would rather the statute just provide an explicit exemption under 30.06/30.07 for those staying at the hotel.

There's already an explicit exemption for 46.02 for those traveling, but I don't know if it has been tested in court whether or not it applies to license holders since license holders are already exempt from 46.02 or if a license holder could be considered carrying under the 46.02 traveling exemption.

But yes I think that would be a step forward. Honestly I want to see full decriminalization of 30.06 just like if you have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, you still need to ask a patron to leave before they are considered trespassing. I don't know how likely that will be given Texas' view on property rights, but the business would still have the right to ask anyone to leave, including license holders.

mr1337 wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

KLB wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

OK, then a legislatively imposed remedy that the trespass charge will not stand. You ought to have notice when you book your room, not when you stagger into the motel after a long day on the road.

I would rather the statute just provide an explicit exemption under 30.06/30.07 for those staying at the hotel.

There's already an explicit exemption for 46.02 for those traveling, but I don't know if it has been tested in court whether or not it applies to license holders since license holders are already exempt from 46.02 or if a license holder could be considered carrying under the 46.02 traveling exemption.

But yes I think that would be a step forward. Honestly I want to see full decriminalization of 30.06 just like if you have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, you still need to ask a patron to leave before they are considered trespassing. I don't know how likely that will be given Texas' view on property rights, but the business would still have the right to ask anyone to leave, including license holders.

Added to OP:

EDIT 9/7/2016:
These ideas are added because of the AG opinion that gov'ts can't be held accountable for signs on their property that is posted by the private entity running their business or event on that property, and for the problem with the severe time delay for the fines for signs law.
Hold private entities accountable for posting unenforceable signs on government owned property.
Hold officials personally accountable for unenforceable/illegal 30.06/30.07/verbal notices on public property. We have already seen on numerous occasions that government officials have no problem spending tax dollars to keep their signs up.
Any license holder who is carrying and denied entry onto public property for an event will be owed money in damages from the gov't/institution who is refusing him entry.
Remove everything about amusement parks, hospitals/nursing homes, and churches/synagogues from 46.035.

A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

KLB wrote:A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

Too complicated and hard to enforce. How about just removing the carry prohibition and let the law abiding citizens carry where our fellow citizen cops carry?

KLB wrote:A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

I think it would be better to just remove the ability to prohibit weapons on any non-school property, no matter what type of activity is taking place. Of course I want to remove all restrictions, for LTC holders, that aren't placed on LEOs.

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

Too complicated and hard to enforce. How about just removing the carry prohibition and let the law abiding citizens carry where our fellow citizen cops carry?

You beat me by mere seconds!!

Jusme wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

Too complicated and hard to enforce. How about just removing the carry prohibition and let the law abiding citizens carry where our fellow citizen cops carry?

You beat me by mere seconds!!

Great minds...

Jusme wrote:Of course I want to remove all restrictions, for LTC holders, that aren't placed on LEOs.

By far the most desired outcome of the 2017 session.

Getting elementary - high schools removed, as well as bars will be a big battle... but even if we can get racetracks, polling places, churches, amusement parks, city / county meetings, and hospitals off of the list, then that will just leave bars, jails, schools, courtrooms, and airports.

I would even support concealed only in schools or bars , like they did on college campus... if that is what it takes to get it passed. But I think that open carry has become such a snooze fest that even the most liberal nutjobs around have to admit that it has been a total non-issue, and that there is no reason to assume that it will suddenly become a big problem between now and Jan 10, 2017 when the 85th TXLEG Session starts.

AJSully421 wrote:Getting elementary - high schools removed, as well as bars will be a big battle... but even if we can get racetracks, polling places, churches, amusement parks, city / county meetings, and hospitals off of the list, then that will just leave bars, jails, schools, courtrooms, and airports.

I would even support concealed only in schools or bars , like they did on college campus... if that is what it takes to get it passed. But I think that open carry has become such a snooze fest that even the most liberal nutjobs around have to admit that it has been a total non-issue, and that there is no reason to assume that it will suddenly become a big problem between now and Jan 10, 2017 when the 85th TXLEG Session starts.

Lets see...

Churches, Amusement Parks, City/county meetings and hospitals area already off the list unless they post 30.06 or 30.07 which private entities (churches, amusement parks and hospitals) already can. That leaves City/County meetings that are subject to open meetings notifications, which probably wouldn't have that much of an impact any way.

Frankly, the easiest way to deal with this whole mess is to add "persons licensed under Chapter 411 sub-chapter H " to PC 46.15. LTC holders have a stellar 20-year track record as a whole.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Getting elementary - high schools removed, as well as bars will be a big battle... but even if we can get racetracks, polling places, churches, amusement parks, city / county meetings, and hospitals off of the list, then that will just leave bars, jails, schools, courtrooms, and airports.

I would even support concealed only in schools or bars , like they did on college campus... if that is what it takes to get it passed. But I think that open carry has become such a snooze fest that even the most liberal nutjobs around have to admit that it has been a total non-issue, and that there is no reason to assume that it will suddenly become a big problem between now and Jan 10, 2017 when the 85th TXLEG Session starts.

Lets see...

Churches, Amusement Parks, City/county meetings and hospitals area already off the list unless they post 30.06 or 30.07 which private entities (churches, amusement parks and hospitals) already can. That leaves City/County meetings that are subject to open meetings notifications, which probably wouldn't have that much of an impact any way.

Frankly, the easiest way to deal with this whole mess is to add "persons licensed under Chapter 411 sub-chapter H " to PC 46.15. LTC holders have a stellar 20-year track record as a whole.

Well... while I hear what you are saying, there is something that you missed, and it is pretty substantial.

Govt code 411.209 states (in part):

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

So... removing those places that I mentioned from the list in PC 46, even with the current scheme of having subsection (I) that exempts some of these places unless 30.06 is posted, would do much more than you have indicated. This alone would make the Dallas zoo suddenly no longer off limits. It would also serve to reduce confusion about what places are off-limits (We have to clear that up monthly around here), and it would be a step in the right direction if nothing else.

I do agree that getting the whole thing tossed is what I want... but there is a Rolling Stones song about getting what you want.

AJSully421 wrote:Well... while I hear what you are saying, there is something that you missed, and it is pretty substantial.

Govt code 411.209 states (in part):

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

So... removing those places that I mentioned from the list in PC 46, even with the current scheme of having subsection (I) that exempts some of these places unless 30.06 is posted, would do much more than you have indicated. This alone would make the Dallas zoo suddenly no longer off limits. It would also serve to reduce confusion about what places are off-limits (We have to clear that up monthly around here), and it would be a step in the right direction if nothing else.

I do agree that getting the whole thing tossed is what I want... but there is a Rolling Stones song about getting what you want.

46.035 is the one that causes a number of headaches, sure. But most of the places that are listed are already exempted 46.035(i).

The way I read the AG's opinion on the Dallas Zoo, he stated that they are an amusement park, yes, but he also later said that if the land is leased (in essence, used) by another entity, that entity could post, but it wouldn't be enforceable.

The government owned property but leased or used by 3rd part is a different matter entirely that doesn't directly play into off limits areas for LTC holders.

TSRA and NRA are silent about the Priorities for this election. It is the Presidential Election.
Protect the 2ndA from being stolen while you are asleep.