Wait 'til next year

[WildBill]

Basically you want state pre-emption; except as specifically prescribed by state law, no local jurisdiction's weapons laws could override the State statute. I agree; I think it's a great thing to have, and it's a good first step towards OC of all types of weapons.

So if the state legislature passed this law would it invalidate all of the local laws that are already in place?

[Kalrog]

Basically you want state pre-emption; except as specifically prescribed by state law, no local jurisdiction's weapons laws could override the State statute. I agree; I think it's a great thing to have, and it's a good first step towards OC of all types of weapons.

So if the state legislature passed this law would it invalidate all of the local laws that are already in place?

Yes it would. And we essentially have it. That is why cities can't ban at any GOVERNMENT (instead of state) owned locations. State law pre-empts local laws and specifically doesn't all local governments to do that.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I'm sure that some people hold there liquor (beer, wine, whatever) better than others. I've always been of the opinion that weapons and alcohol go together like a match in a fireworks stand.

I have never thought that maintaining proper behavior and judgement after having one beer is a matter of "holding one's liquor." I never feel the need to "hold my liquor." I tend to associate that term with people who have multiple drinks at a sitting.

The way I look at it, I'm the same nice, peaceful, law-abiding guy after drinking a beer than I was before. And I have the same legal and moral right to defend myself against criminal attack and/or the unlawful use (or attemp of use) of force against me.

For those rare individuals who have an abnormal response to alcohol such that their judgement goes out the window after one beer, I would say that they should avoid alcohol period, whether they are carrying or not.

For the rest of us, I think the current legal standards for intoxication and/or impaired judgement are reasonable.

So to me, guns and a beer go together like a beer and a steak.

I would just like to see the law apply to LEO's just as it does to CHL's. Right now, it's legal for LEO's to drink themselves drunk while carrying. I think this is wrong and should be changed.

[anygunanywhere]

I'm sure that some people hold there liquor (beer, wine, whatever) better than others. I've always been of the opinion that weapons and alcohol go together like a match in a fireworks stand.

I have never thought that maintaining proper behavior and judgement after having one beer is a matter of "holding one's liquor." I never feel the need to "hold my liquor." I tend to associate that term with people who have multiple drinks at a sitting.

The way I look at it, I'm the same nice, peaceful, law-abiding guy after drinking a beer than I was before. And I have the same legal and moral right to defend myself against criminal attack and/or the unlawful use (or attemp of use) of force against me.

For those rare individuals who have an abnormal response to alcohol such that their judgement goes out the window after one beer, I would say that they should avoid alcohol period, whether they are carrying or not.

For the rest of us, I think the current legal standards for intoxication and/or impaired judgement are reasonable.

So to me, guns and a beer go together like a beer and a steak.

I would just like to see the law apply to LEO's just as it does to CHL's. Right now, it's legal for LEO's to drink themselves drunk while carrying. I think this is wrong and should be changed.

Frankie, there may be hope for me and you yet.

Anygun

[numist]

I'm sure that some people hold there liquor (beer, wine, whatever) better than others. I've always been of the opinion that weapons and alcohol go together like a match in a fireworks stand.

I have never thought that maintaining proper behavior and judgement after having one beer is a matter of "holding one's liquor." I never feel the need to "hold my liquor." I tend to associate that term with people who have multiple drinks at a sitting.

The way I look at it, I'm the same nice, peaceful, law-abiding guy after drinking a beer than I was before. And I have the same legal and moral right to defend myself against criminal attack and/or the unlawful use (or attemp of use) of force against me.

For those rare individuals who have an abnormal response to alcohol such that their judgement goes out the window after one beer, I would say that they should avoid alcohol period, whether they are carrying or not.

For the rest of us, I think the current legal standards for intoxication and/or impaired judgement are reasonable.

So to me, guns and a beer go together like a beer and a steak.

I would just like to see the law apply to LEO's just as it does to CHL's. Right now, it's legal for LEO's to drink themselves drunk while carrying. I think this is wrong and should be changed.

I agree that LEO should be held to the same standards. Please don't take my opinion on this issue as any kind of personal attack. I just believe that when weapons and alcohol don't mix.
I just wouldn't want to have alcohol on my breath if I have to use my weapon. I love a good, cold beer on occasion but I won't be carrying when I imbibe.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I agree that LEO should be held to the same standards. Please don't take my opinion on this issue as any kind of personal attack. I just believe that when weapons and alcohol don't mix.

No offense taken.

I just wouldn't want to have alcohol on my breath if I have to use my weapon. I love a good, cold beer on occasion but I won't be carrying when I imbibe.

I hear you. But I just have a different take on it. I would not want to give up my most effective means of self defense just because I decided to enjoy a beer. I'm fully confident that having a beer would have no effect on my decision to shoot or not shoot. I am fully confident that if I ever did decide to shoot it would be because I was facing a last resort situation, and that whether I had a beer before the incident would not make the slightest difference in the ultimate outcome.

If my confidence is misplaced then so be it, but that's how I have decided to live my life and it has worked out pretty well so far.

[anygunanywhere]

I was just reading another one of those "That durn city/county/government posted them dadgum illegal 30.06 signs at that fair/show/building and I don't want to be the test case so I dadgum well won't go" threads.

If you have read some of my posts I have very little tolerance for signs. I do not violate signs that meet the letter of the law. I will walk past ones that are a lame attempt and scare some CHLrs.

Now that the traveling/car carry issue has been resolved (Anygun looks around to make sure), I would like our legiscritters to fix the issue where governments blatantly violate the intent of 30.06. If a law states "SO and SO can not do this" then by golly there better be penalties involved and legal recourse for us to pursue if "SO and SO" does it and some of their enforcers take action.

School must be defined, and college is not school.

Elementary school. Sounds like the words fit.
Middle school. Yup. That fits.
High school. Definitely fits.
University school. Nope.
College school. Nuhuh.

If the building has "school" in the title, that does not mean it is always a school. If a school district leases the place to some bonafide church it is a church and if they say bring your guns, so much the better.

And if I want to go to a fight and watch a hockey game break out whiole packing I should be allowed to do so. After all, they got sticks.

Anygun

[seamusTX]

School must be defined, and college is not school.

PC §46.03 actually says "educational institution."

I agree that it should be defined, preferably to public elementary and high schools. Private schools can post 30.06 if they wish.

This would be a very hard sell politically. I can't see it happening in the near future.

- Jim

[Liberty]

I was just reading another one of those "That durn city/county/government posted them dadgum illegal 30.06 signs at that fair/show/building and I don't want to be the test case so I dadgum well won't go" threads.

If you have read some of my posts I have very little tolerance for signs. I do not violate signs that meet the letter of the law. I will walk past ones that are a lame attempt and scare some CHLrs.

Now that the traveling/car carry issue has been resolved (Anygun looks around to make sure), I would like our legiscritters to fix the issue where governments blatantly violate the intent of 30.06. If a law states "SO and SO can not do this" then by golly there better be penalties involved and legal recourse for us to pursue if "SO and SO" does it and some of their enforcers take action.

School must be defined, and college is not school.

Elementary school. Sounds like the words fit.
Middle school. Yup. That fits.
High school. Definitely fits.
University school. Nope.
College school. Nuhuh.

If the building has "school" in the title, that does not mean it is always a school. If a school district leases the place to some bonafide church it is a church and if they say bring your guns, so much the better.

And if I want to go to a fight and watch a hockey game break out whiole packing I should be allowed to do so. After all, they got sticks.

Anygun

Why should any school teacher be denied the right to defend themselves. Are teachers by law concidered a`lower form of human because their charges are younger,
Seems strange to me we can trust teachers with our chldrens minds, but we can't trust them with a gun.

[KD5NRH]

and a professional sporting event (that one is just ridiculous)

But...things could get nasty at those chess tournaments...

[seamusTX]

Why should any school teacher be denied the right to defend themselves. ... Seems strange to me we can trust teachers with our chldrens minds, but we can't trust them with a gun.

Excellent point.

I've said before that if I were king for a day, I would wipe out chapter 46 of the penal code.

The problem is that we live in a roughly democratic system, and the public reaction to allowing any gun anywhere is too much for some of our fellow citizens to handle. Removing the restriction on colleges and universities woud be a good first step.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

I was just reading another one of those "That durn city/county/government posted them dadgum illegal 30.06 signs at that fair/show/building and I don't want to be the test case so I dadgum well won't go" threads.

If you have read some of my posts I have very little tolerance for signs. I do not violate signs that meet the letter of the law. I will walk past ones that are a lame attempt and scare some CHLrs.

Now that the traveling/car carry issue has been resolved (Anygun looks around to make sure), I would like our legiscritters to fix the issue where governments blatantly violate the intent of 30.06. If a law states "SO and SO can not do this" then by golly there better be penalties involved and legal recourse for us to pursue if "SO and SO" does it and some of their enforcers take action.

School must be defined, and college is not school.

Elementary school. Sounds like the words fit.
Middle school. Yup. That fits.
High school. Definitely fits.
University school. Nope.
College school. Nuhuh.

If the building has "school" in the title, that does not mean it is always a school. If a school district leases the place to some bonafide church it is a church and if they say bring your guns, so much the better.

And if I want to go to a fight and watch a hockey game break out whiole packing I should be allowed to do so. After all, they got sticks.

Anygun

Why should any school teacher be denied the right to defend themselves. Are teachers by law concidered a`lower form of human because their charges are younger,
Seems strange to me we can trust teachers with our chldrens minds, but we can't trust them with a gun.

I advocate legal carry by anyone anywhere LEO can carry without a license. Absolute freesom and no infringement by states or feds.

Any exception must be defined to minimize confusion. If the law says "school" then school must be defined.

Anygun

[frankie_the_yankee]

I advocate legal carry by anyone anywhere LEO can carry without a license. Absolute freedom and no infringement by states or feds.

We're close, except for my part I would allow for non-LEO's to carry anywhere an LEO can with a license. We've been there before, but I just do not regard a shall issue CHL as being an infringement.

The types of things that I have problems with are lifetime restrictions on non-violent felons and non-violent DV "issues". And FWIW, my own opinion is that even violent felons should be able to get their gun rights restored after some period of time - 10 years or something like that. If someone stays out of trouble for 10 years, there's a good argument that can be made that they have rehabilitated themselves.

Unfortunately, I don't see any of those laws changing any time soon.

[Liberty]

Why should any school teacher be denied the right to defend themselves. ... Seems strange to me we can trust teachers with our chldrens minds, but we can't trust them with a gun.

Excellent point.

I've said before that if I were king for a day, I would wipe out chapter 46 of the penal code.

The problem is that we live in a roughly democratic system, and the public reaction to allowing any gun anywhere is too much for some of our fellow citizens to handle. Removing the restriction on colleges and universities woud be a good first step.

- Jim

I know you are right about the public acceptance, and I also believe that that it is more critical to let folks arm themselves at out colleges and university. but the publics reluctance to allow CHLers to pack in our public schools has no real logic behind it. It is all about irrational fears. If the killings in Pennsylvania didn't convince the soccer Mom's and Teachers unions I don't know what will.

[tomneal]

After reading this thread and speaking to a bunch of Rights Enthusiasts, I have modified my list. (These are not listed in any order.)

Texas

- CHL is a valid ID

- SB501 - 30-06 has no meaning when cities post their facilities. Have a DAILY fine for government officials that post meaningless 30-06 signs. About the same fine $50 - $1000 per day fine local governments have for individuals not following their rules. This still includes the Houston Red Badge of CHL.

- Parking lot bill. (I think this is the only bill we pushed, that didn't make it in 2007.)

- CHL Holders can pack any where and any way Texas Law Enforcement officials can pack.

- No voluntary searches of vehicles or homes. If the officer has probable cause, get a warrant, otherwise NO! (I am a Rights Enthusiasts, not just a 2nd Amendment Gun Nut.)

Federal

- Buy and sell guns anywhere in the US where the state uses NCIS. If they are doing the background check in Washington, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to buy a gun in Nevada.

- Carry in National Parks. There is a move in DC to change the rules to match the states where the parks reside.

- Carry in Post Offices. (Did I read that it's only a $50 fine? Maybe I'll just spot them the $50 if they spot me and take offense.)

- Make it legal to use abbreviations on a 4473 yellow form. Remove County from the form. (TX, Hou., Y, N Should all be ok.) (If you know the city, state, and zip, Why do you need the county?)
(Yes, I read the post that said it's up to the BATFE but, they don't seem to follow the wishes of congress. Maybe it would help if the rules were spelled out.)

- Dissolve the BATFE.
(Yes, I read the Ron Paul solution. I don't believe he could do it.)