What I would like to see

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

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Re: What I would like to see

Postby stevie_d_64 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:17 pm

nitrogen wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
cxm wrote:1. Stand Your Ground Law
2. Modify 30.06 to require any public accomodation that wants to post to provide secure lockers for storage of firearms.
3. Establish strict liability for any CHL holder who suffers loss or injury as a result of criminals in establishment posting.

FIWW

Chuck


You don't own your own business, do you?

You guys know I am a staunch CHL supporter, but the government should not interfere with a business right to control itself in this manner.


I have to agree grudgingly with this.
I would say this though, I would be more likely to patronize a business that was posted if they provided secure storage for my firearm. If we could find some way to encourage businesses that want to post to do this without spending a lot of money, I'd be in favor of that.

Arizona does this, and when I lived there it was not enforced; it was basically a joke.


Utah does too...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby stevie_d_64 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:22 pm

kw5kw wrote:
carlson1 wrote:Carry anywhere LEO can carry for exception of the courts. ;-)

:iagree:


Even in the courts, I know most have secure facilities to lock them up...No muss, no fuss, or cost...

I had to go to a sentencing for a family member in Austin a few years ago, and the Federal courthouse had lockers right there in the entrance...

Unused and totally available...My Dad and I both shot the breeze with the agents running the front desk and asked...

They obviously said no...And looked at us afterwards like we were "uglier than homemade soap"...

jerks...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

Postby txinvestigator » Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:30 pm

jrosto wrote:txinvestigator:

Commercial property and private property are two separate entities.

Commercial property can not prohibit entry due to race, sex, or religion.

Commercial property is under the auspice of many local, state and federal laws and regulations that private property is exempted from.

Commercial property is open to the public, the public has the right to keep and bear arms, therefor the public has the right to carry on commercial property.

It is too bad that our current laws, and our rights, do not coincide.

I would like changes in Texas law to either remove the 30.06 and allow carry in all public places, or require locked storage, metal detectors at all doors and adequate security for all places that want to post a 30.06.


I agree in part. However, commercial property is NOT "open to the public". They can decide to not allow people in who do not wear shoes or shirts, or are not wearing a tie, etc. Shall we remove the rights of the owner to have these restrictions also?
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.
txinvestigator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area

Postby wo5m » Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:43 pm

carlson1 wrote:Carry anywhere LEO can carry for exception of the courts. ;-)


What about making 30.06 apply to off duty LEO's as well? It wouldn't take away any owner rights and might make them think twice about putting up a sign in the first place.
wo5m
Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:38 pm
Location: Plano, Texas

Postby carlson1 » Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:06 pm

wo5m wrote:
carlson1 wrote:Carry anywhere LEO can carry for exception of the courts. ;-)


What about making 30.06 apply to off duty LEO's as well? It wouldn't take away any owner rights and might make them think twice about putting up a sign in the first place.


I do not believe this would work. I have found in my few years on earth most who are anti-gun are also for police with no guns. Some are even anit-police.
Image
User avatar
carlson1
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6833
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:11 am

Postby Roger Howard » Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:57 pm

I'm with TXinvestigator on this one. Our property right are already infringed on enough. If a business wishes to post, you must respect their decision. In turn they must respect my decision not to shop there. I would like to see secure storage in these places. I don't feel the trunk of a car is secure.
18 Wheels and a 9 mil
If guns kill people, then I can blame mispelled words on my pencil

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
User avatar
Roger Howard
Senior Member
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:36 pm
Location: Texas City, TX

Public Accomodation

Postby cxm » Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:03 pm

Well... limitations on property rights of "public accomodations" are well established at law... they must comply with ADA for example... fire codes, health codes and so on. Imposing restrictions on business is nothing new, and I honestly believe that if they had to provide for safe storage of weapons if they post, plus the strict liability we would see a lot less posting.

Just my view.

V/r

Chuck



txinvestigator wrote:
jrosto wrote:txinvestigator:



I agree in part. However, commercial property is NOT "open to the public". They can decide to not allow people in who do not wear shoes or shirts, or are not wearing a tie, etc. Shall we remove the rights of the owner to have these restrictions also?
Hoist on High the Bonnie Blue Flag That Bears the Single Star!
cxm
Senior Member
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:00 pm
Location: Tejas, CSA

Re: What I would like to see

Postby KD5NRH » Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:37 pm

cxm wrote:1. Stand Your Ground Law
2. Modify 30.06 to require any public accomodation that wants to post to provide secure lockers for storage of firearms.
3. Establish strict liability for any CHL holder who suffers loss or injury as a result of criminals in establishment posting.


4. College campus (at least) carry, with state schools not allowed to post
5. Other weapons (ASP, PR-24, large pepper spray) allowed with CHL
6. BAC specified for "intoxicated" carry
7. 51% rule removed for those not intoxicated
8. Polling place prohibition removed
9. Clarify 9.04 (*)
10. Lawyer tag price reduced so the rest of us can hunt them

(*) If, as has been discussed here, the "threat of deadly force" provision it only applies to situations where you can legally use deadly force, then why would it specify that the threat is not deadly force?
KD5NRH
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
Location: Stephenville TX

Re: What I would like to see

Postby cyphur » Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:20 pm

KD5NRH wrote:4. College campus (at least) carry, with state schools not allowed to post
5. Other weapons (ASP, PR-24, large pepper spray) allowed with CHL
6. BAC specified for "intoxicated" carry
7. 51% rule removed for those not intoxicated
8. Polling place prohibition removed
9. Clarify 9.04 (*)
10. Lawyer tag price reduced so the rest of us can hunt them

(*) If, as has been discussed here, the "threat of deadly force" provision it only applies to situations where you can legally use deadly force, then why would it specify that the threat is not deadly force?



I like that list quite a bit. Roll that into the new SYG bill and limitation of liability and I think that would be a heck of a successful session - even if they only got half of it passed! :grin:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke
"Despite what your momma told you, violence does solve problems." - Ryan Job, SEAL Team 3
cyphur
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Flower mound, Tx

Re: What I would like to see

Postby kanders » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:04 pm

KD5NRH wrote:4. College campus (at least) carry, with state schools not allowed to post
5. Other weapons (ASP, PR-24, large pepper spray) allowed with CHL
6. BAC specified for "intoxicated" carry
7. 51% rule removed for those not intoxicated
8. Polling place prohibition removed
9. Clarify 9.04 (*)
10. Lawyer tag price reduced so the rest of us can hunt them


For 6. and 7., how about CHL holders, and ONLY CHL holders, allowed to carry in 51% businesses as long as they are not intoxicated (defined by the same criteria as DUI intoxication)?
kanders
Member
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:40 am

Postby Mike1951 » Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:44 pm

I'm not sure how secure storage would work.

I personally wouldn't leave my handgun in a locker unless I carried my own padlock with me. Too much chance of someone else accessing that locker.

Now if they institute something like a return to 'hat check' girls.............
Mike
AF5MS
TSRA Life Member
NRA Benefactor Member
Mike1951
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:06 am
Location: SE Texas

Postby jrosto » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:03 pm

Colorado Law seems to work pretty well:

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:
(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;
(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and (c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.
"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." Ronald Reagan
jrosto
Senior Member
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Arlington

Postby jrosto » Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:05 pm

I also like Colorado's traveling law:

(
3) (a) a person who may lawfully possess a handgun may carry a handgun under the following circumstances without obtaining a permit and the handgun shall not be considered concealed:

(I) the handgun is in the possession of a person who is in a private automobile or in some other private means of conveyance and who carries the handgun for a legal use, including self-defense.
"No arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." Ronald Reagan
jrosto
Senior Member
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Arlington

Postby stevie_d_64 » Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:50 pm

jrosto wrote:Colorado Law seems to work pretty well:

(4) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a public building at which:
(a) Security personnel and electronic weapons screening devices are permanently in place at each entrance to the building;
(b) Security personnel electronically screen each person who enters the building to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon of any kind; and (c) Security personnel require each person who is carrying a weapon of any kind to leave the weapon in possession of security personnel while the person is in the building.


Does their law define what "4c" entails???

- who (specifically)

- how (what constitutes possession???)

- secure meaning??? (locker, restricted access to a room)

- How do you relinquish and take repossesion of weapon, where and how discrete???

Once you get through those hurdles, I'm not totally offended by clearer information and procedure...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar
stevie_d_64
Senior Member
 
Posts: 7550
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089

gov restrictions on business

Postby switch » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:00 pm

I know TXInvestigator and like/respect him but we might have to agree to disagree on this.

The 2nd says 'shall not be infringed'. Right now, they just apply that to the Feds (let's not even talk about the NFA :cry: )

Why does it NOT apply to private citizens? Why can my boss/neighbor etc. infringe my God - given right?

I like AZ's strict liability law - if you create a gun-free zone, you are liable for damages (or triple damages).

Restrict employers from disciplining employees that have guns in their POV. Why can they force their employees to commute unarmed.

The reason they restrict employees from carrying AT WORK is liability - they do NOT have any liability. If you get shot at work, you cannot sue your employer, you can only get help from the Worker's Comp insurance. Preventing employees from arming/protecting themselves should be an obvious work hazard and allow any employee to claim damages and seek compensation from any injuries from the employer.
switch
Senior Member
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX

PreviousNext

Return to Goals for 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest