Wish list for 2009

[numist]

After reading umpteen different threads about 30.06 signs (valid and not) I've decided that my wish list for the up-coming legislative session would include a new bill. A bill that would make businesses be required to prove that they can provide security measures to protect every person on their property before attempting to post 30.06 signage.
Those measures would include metal detectors at all entrances, staffed by armed security or police only. Otherwise they would be welcome to put up signs that say " the unlicenced possession of a weapon.." all day long.
As I don't believe that any person or entity other than the State of Texas (they issued the permit) has the right to dis-arm a license holder simply because they are frightened of guns, I see this proposed legislation as a compromise. It would give the opportunity for businesses to be un-armed victim zones if they so desire but would squarely place all liability on them for creating such zones. They just might realize that the only people that they are forcing to be un-armed are the lawful and not the criminals.
I know, I know... keep on dreaming.

[srothstein]

As long as we are starting a wish list, I would add that we should work on the definitions to make them more clear. Education institution and sporting events could be clarified, especially the professional part of sporting events. Add in what is meant by premises where a school sponsored event is taking place (zoo with class trip for example) would also help.

I would modify yours to just make the liability laws more clear that they are assuming the liability for anyone they disarm. Without getting into the private property rights arguments, this does seem like a very good compromise and solution to whose rights are more important.

The last law I would like is a penalty for governmental agencies improperly posting 30.06 signs. If not a true criminal penalty, at least a civil suit method to force removal. To help Frankie, we could add in some clarification that property that is owned by the government but leased to a private individual/organization could not be posted.

We made some very big strides in this last session, so short of repealing chapter 46, I think we should take some small steps this year to consolidate and reinforce what we have. 2011 is when we go for big things like open carry, or maybe repeal of Chapter 46 altogether. Well, that last may take a few more years than that.

[CleverNickname]

I'd remove the prohibitions on knife length, switchblades, clubs, knuckles, etc. Remove the prohibition on carrying in schools (maybe just try for universities first?), polling places and sporting events. It's not that big a deal and may be more trouble than it's worth, but I'd like to see PC 46.035 (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6) removed, they just confuse people who don't read further and read 46.035(i).

Also, this isn't really a CHL issue, but I'd like to see something similar to Tennessee's law that requires local law enforcement agencies to sign BATFE forms for title II firearms.

[RKirby]

My wishes for 2009 are simple...give CHL's the right to carry anywhere that a LEO legally can, and remove the restrictions related to carrying in school buildings.


Edited to fix a case of bad grammar that only took me eight months to notice.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The last law I would like is a penalty for governmental agencies improperly posting 30.06 signs. If not a true criminal penalty, at least a civil suit method to force removal. To help Frankie, we could add in some clarification that property that is owned by the government but leased to a private individual/organization could not be posted.

I appreciate the sentiment, Steve, but if there was a provision like that in the law it would never pass. There would be too many big business interests lined up against it, like Mark Cuban and his pals running the AA Center for instance.

I'd be afraid that they would re-write the law to place the "right to post 30.06" in the hands of whatever entity is in day-to-day control of the premesis (i.e. the one who has the keys) no matter who may or may not show up in the chain of ownership or who may hold the fee simple deed.

I think our best chances lie with some kind of broad law that says that essentially that CHLs can carry in any public accommodation, no matter who owns it, - basically in any public place where they have a right to be. Something along the lines of Perry's somewhat off the cuff comments in the wake of the VT shooting last April.

[tornado]

My wishes for 2009 are simple...give CHL's the right to carry anywhere that an LEO legally can, and remove the restrictions related to carrying in school buildings.

[carlson1]

My wishes for 2009 are simple...give CHL's the right to carry anywhere that an LEO legally can, and remove the restrictions related to carrying in school buildings.

[apostate]

Here's another vote to update 46.15 such that a concealed handgun licensee enjoys the same nonapplicability as an honorably retired peace officer and a current peace officer who is not engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's duties. Ideally, that would also include repeal of all of 46.035 but I'd go along with keeping 46.035a if that's necessary to get the rest but the penalty for 46.035a should be (at most) an administrative fine.

Another improvement would be to get that guy from the CSI show to explain that fingerprints don't change so they're not really needed for renewals. Other states have realized that, so there's hope.

[LarryH]

Another improvement would be to get that guy from the CSI show to explain that fingerprints don't change so they're not really needed for renewals. Other states have realized that, so there's hope.

Good luck on that one. I still have to get fingerprinted every time my security clearance is renewed.

My theory is that the bureaucrats have to verify that no one has stolen my identity within the last five years.

[Tactical_Texan_CHL]

I have an inch long scar across the pad of my thumb where my print pattern no longer lines up, darn near lost the end of my thumb! I didn't have it when I was printed for my original CHL. Maybe that's their basis? Just a thought, not that I'm taking their side. My wish is also that we have less restrictions on where we can carry. Apostate has a pretty good wish.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here's another vote to update 46.15 such that a concealed handgun licensee enjoys the same nonapplicability as an honorably retired peace officer and a current peace officer who is not engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's duties.

Are you reading in my "Bill File?"

Chas.

[tornado]

If 46.15 were so amended, there's still 46.035 to contend with (although I imagine Charles has that in mind.)

What I'm thinking of is that although we'd be able to carry on/in "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted," (46.03, emphasis added) we would still be prohibited from carrying "on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place" (46.035).

Charles, I don't have access to your Bill File. Is this school conundrum sufficiently addressed already?

And as we all remember from class, 46.035 is also the part that prohibits carry in 51% businesses and correctional facilities. I'm OK with not carrying at the latter.

Let me add to the wish list two things I've already PM'd to Charles --

I respect private property rights and the point of 30.06, but to make sure public school districts can't post it, wording might need to be added to expand the ban on posting for "governmental entities" to include any "taxing entity" (or "authority," whatever the proper legal term is).

Also, I work for a state agency in a state-owned building. So we obviously can't post 30.06. But our agency policy manual says employees can't carry. Drives me crazy. If there's any way to fix that, I'd be all for it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

If 46.15 were so amended, there's still 46.035 to contend with (although I imagine Charles has that in mind.)

What I'm thinking of is that although we'd be able to carry on/in "any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted," (46.03, emphasis added) we would still be prohibited from carrying "on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place" (46.035).

Charles, I don't have access to your Bill File. Is this school conundrum sufficiently addressed already?

And as we all remember from class, 46.035 is also the part that prohibits carry in 51% businesses and correctional facilities. I'm OK with not carrying at the latter.

Let me add to the wish list two things I've already PM'd to Charles --

I respect private property rights and the point of 30.06, but to make sure public school districts can't post it, wording might need to be added to expand the ban on posting for "governmental entities" to include any "taxing entity" (or "authority," whatever the proper legal term is).

Also, I work for a state agency in a state-owned building. So we obviously can't post 30.06. But our agency policy manual says employees can't carry. Drives me crazy. If there's any way to fix that, I'd be all for it.

I really can't say more, but my proposal takes care of everything.

Chas.

[tornado]

I really can't say more, but my proposal takes care of everything.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Say no more.

[apostate]

Are you reading in my "Bill File?"

No, but if it's any consolation, a Federal judge has told me I would be a good lawyer.