Search found 5 matches

by Papa_Tiger
Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:51 pm
Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Replies: 200
Views: 61048

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

MommaBear wrote:What do you mean by opposing an NRA bill?
If the NRA, or the state affiliate the TSRA were to back a bill for open carry on college campuses, they would lose a lot of credibility with their supporters in the legislature. There is no chance that such a bill would pass given the current makeup of the legislature and even the NRA/TSRA supporters in the legislature would not support such a bill according to Charles. Given that Politics is the Art of the Possible, and it is not possible to pass such a bill, neither the TSRA nor the NRA would waste political capital defending such a bill that would be doomed to failure.
by Papa_Tiger
Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:21 pm
Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Replies: 200
Views: 61048

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

AJSully421 wrote:Well... while I hear what you are saying, there is something that you missed, and it is pretty substantial.

Govt code 411.209 states (in part):

Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

So... removing those places that I mentioned from the list in PC 46, even with the current scheme of having subsection (I) that exempts some of these places unless 30.06 is posted, would do much more than you have indicated. This alone would make the Dallas zoo suddenly no longer off limits. It would also serve to reduce confusion about what places are off-limits (We have to clear that up monthly around here), and it would be a step in the right direction if nothing else.

I do agree that getting the whole thing tossed is what I want... but there is a Rolling Stones song about getting what you want.
46.035 is the one that causes a number of headaches, sure. But most of the places that are listed are already exempted 46.035(i).

The way I read the AG's opinion on the Dallas Zoo, he stated that they are an amusement park, yes, but he also later said that if the land is leased (in essence, used) by another entity, that entity could post, but it wouldn't be enforceable.

The government owned property but leased or used by 3rd part is a different matter entirely that doesn't directly play into off limits areas for LTC holders.
by Papa_Tiger
Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:49 pm
Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Replies: 200
Views: 61048

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

AJSully421 wrote:Getting elementary - high schools removed, as well as bars will be a big battle... but even if we can get racetracks, polling places, churches, amusement parks, city / county meetings, and hospitals off of the list, then that will just leave bars, jails, schools, courtrooms, and airports.

I would even support concealed only in schools or bars , like they did on college campus... if that is what it takes to get it passed. But I think that open carry has become such a snooze fest that even the most liberal nutjobs around have to admit that it has been a total non-issue, and that there is no reason to assume that it will suddenly become a big problem between now and Jan 10, 2017 when the 85th TXLEG Session starts.
Lets see...

Churches, Amusement Parks, City/county meetings and hospitals area already off the list unless they post 30.06 or 30.07 which private entities (churches, amusement parks and hospitals) already can. That leaves City/County meetings that are subject to open meetings notifications, which probably wouldn't have that much of an impact any way.

Frankly, the easiest way to deal with this whole mess is to add "persons licensed under Chapter 411 sub-chapter H " to PC 46.15. LTC holders have a stellar 20-year track record as a whole.
by Papa_Tiger
Thu May 05, 2016 8:55 am
Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Replies: 200
Views: 61048

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

ELB wrote:
mr1337 wrote:
wtgib wrote:Remove "verbal notification". Signs must be posted if you don't want to allow oc or cc.
Won't happen. Property owners have a right to ask anyone to leave at any time for (almost) any reason.
And it shouldn't happen -- all it would do is result in more signs.
I'd much rather see the opposite. Get rid of signs and make it such that the business owner has to orally notify you to leave. I don't see that happening though. If businesses really hate the 30.06/30.07 signs as much as they do and they still want to prohibit firearms, I'd dangle it out there that they can get rid of them provided they provide oral notification to each person, every time. It preserves property rights, gets rid of the signs and potentially opens up A LOT more places to LTC holders.
by Papa_Tiger
Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:37 am
Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
Topic: 2017 Legislative Priorities
Replies: 200
Views: 61048

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

I would like to see a clarification to TPC 46.03 to fix the School Activity loophole that so many colleges are using to ban CHL where "school aged children are present".

I'd like to see something like the following:
Penal Code 46.03 - amended wrote: (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building owned or controlled by the school on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless:

(A) pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institutionschool; or

(B) the person possesses or goes with a concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and no other weapon to which this section applies, on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education, on any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of the institution;
Underlined text is removed, red text is added.

Educational institution is not defined in the statues and mostly seems to imply colleges or trade schools which if private will already be able to post 30.06/30.07 and we already have SB 11 for public and private colleges.

*Edited to get the text for 46.03(a)(1) that will be in effect during TX 85.

Return to “2017 Legislative Priorities”