Changes to CHL law

What should be on the 2007 agenda for CHL's?

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Postby rickb308 » Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:44 pm

Lindy wrote:I'm opposed to open carry. I want criminals to be in doubt about who is carrying and who isn't.

I assume that by "flashing" or "printing", you refer to section 42.01a(8), Disorderly Conduct, which refers to "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm." As long as you don't deliberately uncover your handgun, it's hard to see how that would be interpreted to apply by a reasonable person.

Someone else earlier refered to hospitals and churchs - the current law is pretty clear that in both cases you must be given effective notice.


My opinions only.
1. Open carry. Not opposed. Don't think it's very smart. B/G does threat assesment. Sees you carrying. You WILL be first person capped w/o warning when HE decides to "open the dance".

2. "Flashing". City of Watuaga vs. Mark Michael. Jacket raised briefly while exiting vehicle @ convinience store.

3. Renewal - every 2 years. $25.00. Done at DL office. Troopers are already there. Thumbprint. Mine hasn't changed in 42 years. You already have it. Twice. (Original & first renewal)

4. Code/restricition on DL. I already have an "A" on my DL. (Corrective lenses) I think motorcycles have an MC. Make it an F, G, H, or W.
I've never had a store clerk ask what the "A" meant. They are too busy/underpaid to care, other than your name matches the ckeck you are writing.

5. Lose your DL privileges, but not CHL, hole punch a certain area on the DL. Same with CHL vs. DL. Holepunch the CHL area/restriction.

More as I think about it. :)
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
lex talionis
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on the internet.
rickb308
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:41 am
Location: The Colony, Texas (Denton County)

Postby Lindy » Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:20 pm

City of Watuaga vs. Mark Michael: Those charges were dismissed. There is no way to stop some ambitious or otherwise dysfunctional cop or prosecutor from doing something silly, but it's unlikely to get very far - as this case did not.
"Amateurs practice until they can do it right. Professionals practice until they cannot do it wrong." -- John Farnam
User avatar
Lindy
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Rockport

Postby rickb308 » Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:32 pm

Lindy wrote:City of Watuaga vs. Mark Michael: Those charges were dismissed. There is no way to stop some ambitious or otherwise dysfunctional cop or prosecutor from doing something silly, but it's unlikely to get very far - as this case did not.


But it cost him about $15,000 to fight something that should not have happened in the first place.

That was what the original "flashing/printing" remark was refering to.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
lex talionis
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on the internet.
rickb308
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:41 am
Location: The Colony, Texas (Denton County)

Postby troglodyte » Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:36 am

Lindy wrote:I'm opposed to open carry. I want criminals to be in doubt about who is carrying and who isn't.

I assume that by "flashing" or "printing", you refer to section 42.01a(8), Disorderly Conduct, which refers to "displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm." As long as you don't deliberately uncover your handgun, it's hard to see how that would be interpreted to apply by a reasonable person.

Someone else earlier refered to hospitals and churchs - the current law is pretty clear that in both cases you must be given effective notice.


Actually I was referring to section 6.42 (page 70 in my book). Failure to Conceal Handgun. A license holder carrying a handgun must keep the handgun concealed. yada, yada, yada.

I'm not a proponent of open carry. Maybe I should have stated that we needed an "inadvertant exposure of concealed weapon" clause. I'm all for keeping it concealed but accidents do happen.

Concerning the church/hopital (and other places). It states that it is illegal then says you have to have been given effective notice. How is that different than the 30.06 section? It was originally written in then change a few years later. I just think they need to reword the section (or get rid of it). Churches and hospitals could post under the regular 30.06 like businesses. Maybe I'm missing the boat on this but I see too many posts on other boards concerning, especially churches, the legality of carrying in said places. Too many still think it is automatically illegal.

I know, I know, they should read. Sometimes it's not the reading but the understanding that gets them (me). The State could word it in a more clear manner, IMHO.

Best,
Trog
User avatar
troglodyte
Senior Member
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:16 pm
Location: Panhandle region

Postby Lindy » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:33 am

I expect that you're right, Trog - if an establishment must post a 30.06 notice, there is no logical reason to treat them differently than any other place.

But my experience of watching the antics of various legislatures for many decades leads me to suspect that just clearing up the logic of the wording is not sufficient reason to get a legislator to devote time and effort to changes amidst the clamor of competing interests. To get anything done, they must trade votes and favors with other legislators, and they tend to reserve those trades for things which they consider significant - which means that we should do that, too.

If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made.
-- Otto von Bismarck

And given the cost experienced by Michael, I'll conceed Rick's point that some wording covering accidental exposure of a concealed handgun would be nice to have.
"Amateurs practice until they can do it right. Professionals practice until they cannot do it wrong." -- John Farnam
User avatar
Lindy
Member
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 11:07 am
Location: Rockport

Postby rickb308 » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:46 am

Lindy wrote:And given the cost experienced by Michael, I'll conceed Rick's point that some wording covering accidental exposure of a concealed handgun would be nice to have.


Treat us like the LEO's on this one point. Jacket flaps open, BRIEFLY,
no big deal.

Yeah, you are walking around Wal Mart or Home Depot with the side of the jacket tucked behind the holster, hang 'em.

But when getting into/out of a vehicle, come on.
Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
lex talionis
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on the internet.
rickb308
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:41 am
Location: The Colony, Texas (Denton County)

Postby LarryArnold » Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:27 am

troglodyte wrote:Actually I was referring to section 6.42 (page 70 in my book).

The 2004 book doesn't have page 70.

troglodyte wrote:I'm not a proponent of open carry. Maybe I should have stated that we needed an "inadvertant exposure of concealed weapon" clause. I'm all for keeping it concealed but accidents do happen.

Section 46.035 (a) makes it an offense to intentionally fail to conceal. According to our last instructor class we have had cases where coats flopped open getting out of cars, and the CHLs (properly) weren't charged. Of course if you make a lot of mistakes, they'll probably start looking at you funny.

troglodyte wrote:Concerning the church/hopital (and other places). It states that it is illegal then says you have to have been given effective notice. How is that different than the 30.06 section? It was originally written in then change a few years later.

It was changed during the big revision in 1997, when concealed carry was still new. The amendment that became 46.035 (i) was part of passing 30.06. Senator Patterson told the anti-gun folks he was just clarifying what sign everyone had to post. I have his word that it was "artful" not "deceitful." Sometimes you take what you can get.
LarryArnold
Junior Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:35 am
Location: Kerrville

Postby troglodyte » Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:26 pm

I was looking at my copy dated 2001-2002 in the DPS Rules section in the back. It simply says "A license holder carrying a handgun must keep the handgun concealed...."

PC section 46.035 (as Lindy correctly points out) uses the words "intentionally fails to conceal".

Lindy - Thanks for the explaination on the church/hospital carry wording. I knew the law was changed, I just didn't know the details. You're correct, we take what we can get.

Now I wish we could ease the school/university carry.

Trog
User avatar
troglodyte
Senior Member
 
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:16 pm
Location: Panhandle region

Postby Baytown » Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:11 pm

I know I'm late on this, but....

I would like to see a law requiring municipalities to take down 30.06 signs if they are on city buildings that may not prohibit concealed carry. In the municipality where I live, the legal advisor has said there is nothing that makes the city take them down, so they will stay.

I would also like to see the definition of court defined better and should not preclude carry in all of the building or attachments to the building. Where I live the court and the police station have two different addresses and when the court is closed they are seperated by a roll down wall. The PD still has a 30.06 sign and it was explained that the PD is part of the court because the wording of the law.

There is also a city ord. against carry of concealed firearms into city buildings. I do not think this is a lawful ord. and should it not be addressed? The city is not accountable to anyone I guess, but that should change.

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:22 pm

Is this the Glenn I think it is?
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12533
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Postby Baytown » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:08 pm

I think it is. :wink:

See you in Feb.

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

30.06 on city buildings

Postby LarryArnold » Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:05 am

Glenn, the TSRA is working on convincing government types to take down these signs. Contact info is at http://www.tsra.com/office.htm.

It helps if you can send complete information including photos of the signs, who you've talked to, etc.
LarryArnold
Junior Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 10:35 am
Location: Kerrville

Postby Baytown » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:36 pm

Thanks for the link Larry, we can only hope.

Glenn
Baytown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:48 pm

4 years or 5

Postby tomneal » Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:28 pm

some people don't stay current on anything.

Would you make 100 on the Texas WRITTEN Drivers license test if you had to take it today?

I am current on the Texas CHL laws.

I would score higher on that test than the driver.

Five years works better for me.
AND
I would like to test out of the class.
See you at the range
NRA Life, TSRA Life, USPSA Life, Mensa (not worth $50 per year so it's expired)
Tom Neal
User avatar
tomneal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 2:26 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 4 years or 5

Postby TraCoun » Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:17 pm

tomneal wrote:some people don't stay current on anything.

Would you make 100 on the Texas WRITTEN Drivers license test if you had to take it today?

I am current on the Texas CHL laws.

I would score higher on that test than the driver.

Five years works better for me.
AND
I would like to test out of the class.


Testing out of the written part seems reasonable, all you have to do is convince the DPS. Of course, they could always say that new information and cases are always coming up ...
But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that they will never give up the practical requirement, they'd be setting themselves up big time on that, I believe.

TraCoun
TraCoun
Senior Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:52 pm
Location: Friendswood, Tx

PreviousNext

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest