TexasCHLforum.com

SHogun62 wrote:I think all of this .06/.07 mess can be solved by simply re-defining what the word "private property" means.

My home is private property because it is not open to the public. If you run a business that is open to the public at large (retail, food), then by the very nature of being open, you aren't "private".

Concepts from one area of the law often get transferred to others. That makes what you said one of the scarier things I've heard in a long time. I quake at what your average pink could do with your idea to define away private property for all sorts of purposes.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The TAB is not in full support and it isn't a major sore spot with the business community. Andrea Bauer wants everyone to believe this, but it's not the case.

Good. That the 30.06 and 30.07 signs are obnoxious works well for us. If people could get away with gun buster signs, I fear we'd see a lot more restricted businesses.

Our comments are, insofar as I have noticed them, all about expanding our rights. That's a good thing to think about and to be prepared to address. But what if the anti-gunners have an agenda of their own? Has anyone given any thought to what they might try to roll back and how we might counter that? I was speaking to a friend who predicted this will be a rollback session for gun rights.

Rolling back rights would not be based on problems we've had. Insofar as I know, we haven't had any. But opposition to guns is not predominately based on logic. The possibility of a rollback is something to think about.

mojo84 wrote:

KLB wrote:A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

Too complicated and hard to enforce. How about just removing the carry prohibition and let the law abiding citizens carry where our fellow citizen cops carry?

I prefer your solution, but as to enforcement, the absence of a sign should be a defense to prosecution.

A suggestion that I don't think has been covered:

When a non-school venue such as a library hosts a school-related event such that carrying weapons is banned, what about requiring the venue to post notices of the school-related event at all entrances?

mr1337 wrote:Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

OK, then a legislatively imposed remedy that the trespass charge will not stand. You ought to have notice when you book your room, not when you stagger into the motel after a long day on the road.

What about requiring hotels, motels, and the like to post on their websites if they have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign?

There's a new statute in Tennessee that we would do well to emulate:

Any permit holder (a) who forbears from carrying because of a sign barring firearms and (B) who is injured has a cause of action against the poster of the sign, if:

1. The injured permit holder was authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident,

2. The injured permit holder was prohibited from carrying a firearm due to the posting of a gun-free sign, and

3. The property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/2 ... literally/

Here's a Florida municipal lawyer complaining about the Florida statute:

Here's a Florida statute that might offer guidance:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 90.33.html

It says that the state preempts local regulation of firearms and imposes a significant penalty for violations.

TexasCajun wrote:If you limit the court room prohibition to participating parties and anyone related to or with an interest in the proceedings, you'll hit the nail on the head.

Imagine the poor bailiff confronted with 10 people carrying weapons. He must determine on the fly who has an interest in a proceeding and who does not. What does it mean to have an interest? Must it be a direct financial stake or would an indirect one do (e.g., if my insurance company gets nailed by a big verdict in this case, it will have to raise my rates)? Bailiffs are not equipped to deal with such questions.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

joe817 wrote:

gsansing wrote:Since it looks to be Trump v Clinton election in November, I think the 2017 session would be a fine time to re-introduce a bill that would nullify anymore federal attempts at gun control.

........ within our State. More than ever.

Would not work. Stop dreaming. FBI can enforce Federal Law anywhere on US states and territories. All what state of Texas can do is not cooperate with the Feds.

I'll take that.

I agree that Texas should refuse to cooperate with new federal gun control laws and regs, but even if it happens, don't place too much confidence in it. The feds may lack the resources to go door-to-door in Texas, but they've got plenty of resources to, for example, prohibit federally insured banks from doing business with merchants selling guns or ammo. The practical effect would be that guns and ammo would not be commercially available. We're one Supreme Court appointment away from that.

Street gangs would still get all they need from what cartels bring up from Mexico. It's the rest of is who would suffer.

I'm not optimistic about the chances of this, but for cases in which state agencies or (more likely) political subdivisions improperly post 30.06 signs, what about giving aggrieved licensees a private cause of action for something like a $1,000 fine plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs? Instead of overburdening the AG with policing obstruction by political subdivisions, we give citizens the power to bring the government to heel.

How about legislation to prohibit insurance companies from imposing higher rates on businesses (or anyone) if they don't post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Forcing your customers to comply with the political will of the insurance companies by imposing excessive fees for not doing so is just wrong.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that excluding licensed concealed or open carry increase risk so there is no financial reason for charging customers more for not posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs is capricious of not discriminatory.

I sympathize with the problem, but on principle, I don't want government telling insurers how to underwrite risk. That politicizes insurance, and the more we do that, the more we'll screw things up.

Carrying anywhere LEOs can carry would be nice but is probably a bridge too far. As fallback provisions:

• Clarify that caterers should not post 51% signs;
  
  Clarify that local governments can't get away with excluding weapons from areas they consider private. The City of San Antonio has used that to exclude weapons everywhere except the lobbies of city buildings;
  
  Clarify that you can carry a legal knife or other weapon wherever you can carry a gun.