Glenn, the TSRA is working on convincing government types to take down these signs. Contact info is at http://www.tsra.com/office.htm.
It helps if you can send complete information including photos of the signs, who you've talked to, etc.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Changes to CHL law”
- Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:05 am
- Forum: Goals for 2007
- Topic: Changes to CHL law
- Replies: 37
- Views: 28093
- Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:27 am
- Forum: Goals for 2007
- Topic: Changes to CHL law
- Replies: 37
- Views: 28093
The 2004 book doesn't have page 70.troglodyte wrote:Actually I was referring to section 6.42 (page 70 in my book).
Section 46.035 (a) makes it an offense to intentionally fail to conceal. According to our last instructor class we have had cases where coats flopped open getting out of cars, and the CHLs (properly) weren't charged. Of course if you make a lot of mistakes, they'll probably start looking at you funny.troglodyte wrote:I'm not a proponent of open carry. Maybe I should have stated that we needed an "inadvertant exposure of concealed weapon" clause. I'm all for keeping it concealed but accidents do happen.
It was changed during the big revision in 1997, when concealed carry was still new. The amendment that became 46.035 (i) was part of passing 30.06. Senator Patterson told the anti-gun folks he was just clarifying what sign everyone had to post. I have his word that it was "artful" not "deceitful." Sometimes you take what you can get.troglodyte wrote:Concerning the church/hopital (and other places). It states that it is illegal then says you have to have been given effective notice. How is that different than the 30.06 section? It was originally written in then change a few years later.
- Sun Dec 26, 2004 1:36 pm
- Forum: Goals for 2007
- Topic: Changes to CHL law
- Replies: 37
- Views: 28093
On the other hand...
The nonviolent conflict resolution is my favorite class to teach. And I have students that say it gives them a new viewpoint on concealed carry.
IMO we need to get away from the "violent criminal attack" mentality. There are lots of verbal conflicts where shooting is neither justified nor advisable. The last time I got into a self-defense situation it was at an after-Thanksgiving dinner gathering in my daughter's apartment. One guy had a little too much social lubrication and tried to pick a fight with me. I remember thinking, "I really don't want to cap this guy in my daugher's living room and cost her the clean-up deposit." So I used NVCR and talked my way loose. Much neater.
My daughter later told me that the guy just gets pissy when drunk. Turns out she hadn't invited him, he'd come with someone else. Then she told me that if he'd picked on someone else she'd have been worried, but she knew I could handle the situation.
As for licensing periods, if a CHL is valid for longer than five years the Feds won't certify it as a valid substitute for calling in a NICS check when you purchase a firearm.
IMO we need to get away from the "violent criminal attack" mentality. There are lots of verbal conflicts where shooting is neither justified nor advisable. The last time I got into a self-defense situation it was at an after-Thanksgiving dinner gathering in my daughter's apartment. One guy had a little too much social lubrication and tried to pick a fight with me. I remember thinking, "I really don't want to cap this guy in my daugher's living room and cost her the clean-up deposit." So I used NVCR and talked my way loose. Much neater.
My daughter later told me that the guy just gets pissy when drunk. Turns out she hadn't invited him, he'd come with someone else. Then she told me that if he'd picked on someone else she'd have been worried, but she knew I could handle the situation.
As for licensing periods, if a CHL is valid for longer than five years the Feds won't certify it as a valid substitute for calling in a NICS check when you purchase a firearm.