2009 needs to be a clarification year

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby anygunanywhere » Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:28 pm

Russell wrote:That sounds like a great bill Charles, and I really hope it goes through.

I would be very excited :woohoo


We, the members of this forum would like to see Russell excited.

Anygunanywhere
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson
III%
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
User avatar
anygunanywhere
Senior Member
 
Posts: 5104
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Russell » Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:52 pm

Haha!

I don't know if anyone could handle me excited.

I already drive Allison nuts when I buy something for my computer and have to wait for it to arrive. I don't know how I would react if the bill goes through and have to wait for it to go into effect.
http://www.Texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 Signage Database.
Russell
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby aardwolf » Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:13 pm

anygunanywhere wrote:Just allow anyone with a CHL to carry anywhere LEO can carry.

Gov. Perry has stated his support for this idea.


FTW!
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.
aardwolf
Senior Member
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Purplehood » Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:51 am

Russell wrote:It appears I'm the minority here on this one. Sounds fun :mrgreen:


The law that allows LEO's to practically carry anywhere does not need to be changed. It is their job to apprehend criminals and prevent crime, therefor they need to have the authority and ability to do that.

It is not a CHL holders job to be an LEO. If private property is posted, so be it. Report it (texas3006.com), try to change the owner's mind (Hand out no guns no money cards), and then go somewhere else and talk with your dollars.

But above all, and I mean ABOVE ALL, respect private property rights, and that includes allowing the owner to restrict who, and what, he does not want on his land.

We can fight our fight, but that fight should not entail taking away private property owner's rights.

It is not our right to be on their land with something they don't want on there. Go purchase your stuff somewhere else if their business is posted.

That is my stance. :)


I have no interest/intent to do an LEO's job. If I did, I would make every effort to become one.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
User avatar
Purplehood
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby aardwolf » Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:12 am

Russell wrote:But above all, and I mean ABOVE ALL, respect private property rights, and that includes allowing the owner to restrict who, and what, he does not want on his land.

Including government employees who don't have a search warrant, right? If a restaurant can ban me from carrying a concealed handgun when I eat lunch there, they should also be able to ban a government employee from carrying a gun while eating lunch there.
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.
aardwolf
Senior Member
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Russell » Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:17 am

aardwolf wrote:
Russell wrote:But above all, and I mean ABOVE ALL, respect private property rights, and that includes allowing the owner to restrict who, and what, he does not want on his land.

Including government employees who don't have a search warrant, right? If a restaurant can ban me from carrying a concealed handgun when I eat lunch there, they should also be able to ban a government employee from carrying a gun while eating lunch there.



A place already does that, the House of Blues. I also happen to agree with that. If an Officer is off duty, a business *should* be able to ban them from carrying off duty if they so chose to.

That may just make it so that when that business ends up needing police help they might be a little slow to respond, but so be it. That place made their own bed and they can now lay in it ;-)
http://www.Texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 Signage Database.
Russell
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby sbb » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:13 pm

Thanks for your work on this issue, Charles. Do you think that this proposed legislation has a hope of being brought to the floor. If it makes it to the floor what do you believe the odds are on passage?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
User avatar
sbb
Senior Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:24 pm

sbb wrote:Thanks for your work on this issue, Charles. Do you think that this proposed ligislation has a hope of being brought to the floor. If it makes it to the floor what do you believe the odds are on passage?


Prior to Nov. 4th -- yes. Now it's uncertain since we still don't know who will control the Texas House and who will be Speaker. The Speaker of the House decides committee chairmanships as well as who will serve on what committees. He also assigns bills to specific committees.

We woke up to a new political world on Nov. 5th folks. What that world will look like and what it holds for us won't be known for a while. That's why it is critical that everyone who isn't an NRA member click on the link in the header and join. Also join TSRA (that link will be there soon). After joining both of those organizations, please consider joining the new Texas CHL Forum, Inc.

I'm going to write an article for the http://www.TexasCHLblog.com with a copy here talking about the need to rapidly and dramatically increase the membership of all three of those organizations, but I appreciate the opportunity to throw in a plug now. :biggrinjester:

Chas.

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12771
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Russell » Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:54 pm

Also something else Charles,

I do still feel strongly about the gray area that 30.06 creates when signs don't have, for example, 1" lettering but everything else is correct. If I understand your new bill correctly, private business owners will still be able to post legally binding 30.06 signs.

If that is true, it appears your new bill does not cover the gray area issue. Is it possible to have something added to the bill so that a section is added to 30.06 clearly stating that if the sign does not meet ALL of the requirements, it is not legally binding, thereby allowing CHL holders to carry past the sign without fear of repercussions?
http://www.Texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 Signage Database.
Russell
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby 3dfxMM » Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:33 pm

The law is very clear regarding what constitutes a legal 30.06 sign. What about it do you see as a gray area?
3dfxMM
Senior Member
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Russell » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:16 pm

3dfxMM wrote:The law is very clear regarding what constitutes a legal 30.06 sign. What about it do you see as a gray area?



The law may be clear, but there are still many businesses that will post a 30.06 sign and not have the lettering 1", or not include the Spanish translation, and that creates a gray area where a CHL holder may think they are in the right by ignoring the sign, but an officer just arrests them and lets the courts figure it out. This is wrong, and is not the way it should be, but I fear it would happen this way.

If you search these forums, you will see many expressing the same sentiments, that there is a gray area there where many "don't want to be the test case". I believe that if something were added to the statute that would expressly state that if a business does not follow the requirements to a "T", and that a CHL holder cannot be arrested or sued for ignoring the sign, it would take away this uncertainty.
http://www.Texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 Signage Database.
Russell
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:40 pm

Russell wrote:Also something else Charles,

I do still feel strongly about the gray area that 30.06 creates when signs don't have, for example, 1" lettering but everything else is correct. If I understand your new bill correctly, private business owners will still be able to post legally binding 30.06 signs.

If that is true, it appears your new bill does not cover the gray area issue. Is it possible to have something added to the bill so that a section is added to 30.06 clearly stating that if the sign does not meet ALL of the requirements, it is not legally binding, thereby allowing CHL holders to carry past the sign without fear of repercussions?


In Texas, bills are drafted as narrowly as possible to cover the subject matter. This is because amendments that are not germane to the bill cannot be tacked on, as is the case in the U.S. Congress. Adding anything to the bill that relates to TPC §30.06 is not only unnecessary to put CHLs on the same footing as LEOs, it would greatly expand the possibility of anti-gun amendments being added to the bill. This could either kill the bill, or result in us accepting adverse consequences to get the expanded authority. The risk is simply too high.

I have to agree that there is no ambiguity in TPC §30.06; the requirements are specific as to the language and physical requirements for a compliant sign. However, let's say a bill is introduced to amend TPC §30.06 to add the language you suggest. If it passed, then everything is fine and it is even more clear that a non-compliant sign is unenforceable. However, if it doesn't pass, either because people think it isn't necessary, or because tighter requirements aren't wanted by the new majority in Austin, then the failure of the bill would imply that the existing statute (TPC §30.06) does not require strict compliance with physical or language requirements. This is because there is a presumption in law that the legislature never passes an unnecessary bill and that the legislature never includes superfluous language in a bill. In other words, failing to get the bill passed would create the precise situation we don't want.

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12771
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Postby Russell » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:11 am

Fair enough! Thanks for clearing that up.
http://www.Texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 Signage Database.
Russell
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Previous

Return to 2007 Texas Legislative Session

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest