Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:59 am
by anygunanywhere
stevie_d_64 wrote: Ya'll got me going early on the headache today...
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
[/i]
Whoa! Easy there, big fella.
Lean back in your chair, breath in and out slowly. Think happy thoughts. Focus....on the front sight and press the trigger. Envision sending a few downrange.
Feel better?
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:44 am
by stevie_d_64
anygunanywhere wrote:stevie_d_64 wrote: Ya'll got me going early on the headache today...
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
[/i]
Whoa! Easy there, big fella.
Lean back in your chair, breath in and out slowly. Think happy thoughts. Focus....on the front sight and press the trigger. Envision sending a few downrange.
Feel better?
I intend on feeling better at about 9am tomorrow...
"Fear the smooth shooter"
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:40 pm
by Baytown
Houston knows that they will not save money by putting in gun lockers, but they will save money by investing in the Tasers.
Don't believe all the crap you hear about the Taser being "more than less lethal". The people that die are all doped up, very drunk, etc...
Cities save a ton of money with them. Save money by less officers injured, less thugs injured, less shootings, etc...
That being said, I still think that cities should be required to have a gun check for armed citizens.
Glenn
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:46 pm
by dws1117
Glenn, do you forsee a time when tasers may be the primary carry weapon for LEOs?
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:20 pm
by Baytown
I think the touchy feeley side will try and get us to go that way and expect it. The Taser has definate limitations and they need to be recognized.
I have already heard some civilians talk about Tasing a guy with a knife instead of shooting him.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
(There are times when it is possible (Tasing), but it is not the best choice right off the bat.)
Glenn
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:28 pm
by dws1117
When they try to take the guns from the cops, us peasents ought to be really worried.
Hopefully good sense will prevail and that day will never come.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:29 pm
by racer32
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I can't speak for the entire TSRA Legislative Committee, but I believe this may be the flagship bill for 2007. Right behind it, if I have my way, will be a revision to the definition of "premises" and a clarification of what constitutes a school.
Regards,
Chas.
While you're at it, please try to add wording to the effect that a chl-holder LEAVING his/her weapon in a locked vehicle in a school parking area is permitted. I had a conversation with an LEO last week who stated that it was illegal for me to leave my pistol in the car when I went into the building. I believe he is not correct, but nevertheless have been leaving my pistol at home out of fear of prosecution/harrassment/loss of my job if my carry weapon was found in the parking lot while I was at work.
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:04 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
racer32 wrote:I had a conversation with an LEO last week who stated that it was illegal for me to leave my pistol in the car when I went into the building. I believe he is not correct, but nevertheless have been leaving my pistol at home out of fear of prosecution/harrassment/loss of my job if my carry weapon was found in the parking lot while I was at work.
He's dead wrong! TPC §46.03(a)(1) is clear, firearms are only prohibited on the "premises" of a school and the word "premises" is defined to include only buildings (TPC§46.03(c)(1)
adopting TPC §46.035(f)(3)). Also off limits are school busses and school grounds where school activities are on-going, such as football practice.
If you see this same LEO again, show him copies of the relevant sections of the Penal Code. Many times such erroneous statements are simply mistakes based upon lack of familiarity with a particular portion of the Penal Code. If he/she persists after being shown the Penal Code sections, then you’ll know it’s intentional. Also, if an arrest is made by a LEO knowing there is no basis in law or fact, then the LEO can be sued under §1983 - civil rights violation.
Regards,
Chas.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 7:20 pm
by DragonKat
Just wanted to put my 2 cents in. I work at a state agency where it is legal for the public to carry but as employees we can be fired for it or for leaving our gun in our vehicles. I would definately like to see a law protecting employees. At a minimum, allowing them to store their piece in a locked car, at best giving them the same rights as the public who frequent the agencies.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:59 pm
by quidni
DragonKat wrote:Just wanted to put my 2 cents in. I work at a state agency where it is legal for the public to carry but as employees we can be fired for it or for leaving our gun in our vehicles. I would definately like to see a law protecting employees. At a minimum, allowing them to store their piece in a locked car, at best giving them the same rights as the public who frequent the agencies.
Ditto. I'm also a state employee, & the handbook clearly states "no weapons" either in the office or in a vehicle parked on a state-owned parking lot. Our office is currently renting space in a non-state-owned industrial center, but there's talk of moving back to district HQ (with gated employee parking) once the lease here is up in a couple years.
Also, the boss has the lobby posted (with an unenforceable "gun-busters" sign saying "no concealed weapons allowed"). I'm not sure how he came up with this, considering he'd borrowed my copy of "Texas Gun Laws" for a month before putting the sign up. Knowing how he likes to research & document everything, I'm not sure if the sign is just for show, or if he's really anti-CHL.
But I agree, I'd like to see state employees' rights given the same recognition that the general public enjoys. It is, after all, a state-issued permit that the state agency is restricting.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:40 pm
by kw5kw
I also work for an establishment which states in the company handbook that: "It is a violation of this Policy to possess a weapon...at any time on company property, or during working hours, or while engaged in Company business, regardless of location. For purposes of this Section, Company property includes all Company vehicles, wherever located, or personal vehicles while located on the property that is leased or owned by the Company. Employees violating this policy will be subject to disiplinary action, up and including termination.
... Concealed Handguns:
... notices have been posted on the Company property and premises advising the general public of the prohibition of concealed hanguns..."
No such notice exists on company property, nor on any entrance to the property... so the manual is in default in that aspect.
Therefore, if the public can carry (no 30.06 sign) and we can't then we could possibly put ourselves at risk. (While our business isn't in the habit of making people unhappy, but people are people and they do get upset if their vehicles don't run properly! I have seen more than my share of very red-faced people who could possibly return with a vengance. In fact our parking lot has had vehicles regurally vandalized and even one vehicle torched.)
Back to the above... with the above wording, I can't legally carry onto our companies parking lot without risk of being fired. That means that Monday~Friday to and from work I'm not able to carry my weapon.
That isn't fair. If my employer doesn't want me to carry inside the building that is one thing, but I should have the right to have my weapon in my vehicle in case I wish to exercise my right to carry to and from work.
Russ
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:15 pm
by Kalrog
kw5kw wrote:I can't legally carry onto our companies parking lot without risk of being fired.
You can legally carry. But you can also legally be fired for it. You cannot be charged with a crime for carrying (UCW) because you never received the legally required notification to prohibit you from carrying.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:49 pm
by Rich
I wonder what will happen when an employee is hurt or killed in a parking lot, or building of a State Agency that has a no gun policy? And, the employee who was hurt or killed had a CHL.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:27 pm
by Commander
I'd be interested to know which state agencies prohibit handguns. When governmental agencies were prohibited from posting 30.06 signs, Texas DPS dropped all mention of handgun prohibition from its General Manual. The Chief of Highway Patrol is rumored to have said that it made no sense to prohibit employees from doing what the general public could do.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 3:01 am
by KBCraig
Not to mention, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Institutional Division) (still commonly called "TDC") has specific allowance in the Government Code for employees and visitors to store firearms in their cars, and even for CHL-bearing employees in government cars to carry while they're on the clock.
If guns are kosher in prison parking lots, they should certainly be okay in the parking lots of the various bureaucratic agencies.
Kevin