TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for equating the CHL with a LEO as it relates to off-limits locations, I agree with one exception. I think court buildings should remain off-limits to CHL’s, but I’ll go one further. I think they should also be off-limits to LEO’s who are not there in their official capacity.

That's consistent with the general idea of keeping CHLs and LEOs on the same footing.

I'd modify your exception, just slightly: make it court rooms, not court "buildings".

Kevin

I forgot to add... you have to remember why 30.06 was written. In the original CHL law, any "no guns" sign could be used against you, even a 2" ghostbusters sign, white on clear glass, mixed in with the credit card stickers.

I like the fact that 30.06 places a burden on those who wish to ban carry. I respect property rights, and a valid 30.06 sign lets me know that the property owner has gone to some lengths to let me know that he doesn't want me, my gun, or my money on his property. As you wish!

Kevin

Depends on what you mean by doing away with 30.06.

If you mean doing away with property owners' right to ban guns, then no; I wouldn't agree. I believe too strongly in private property rights. (While it's very un-PC, and while I despise discrimination, I also believe that property owners should be able to exclude anyone, for any reason, or for no reason at all.)

If you mean rolling back the penalties for criminal trespass while armed, so that a CHL would face no more penalties than a belligerant customer who refused to leave, then... maybe. It's something to discuss. As it is, the penalty is way too severe.

I do agree the restrictions on CHLs and LEOs should be identical. I don't believe the CHL class needs to be expanded to allow for that. If LEOs were restricted by 30.06, I guarantee that by the end of the next Legislature, 30.06 would be rolled back, or the penalty reduced to meaninglessness.

Kevin