TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

Ruark wrote:

KLB wrote: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.

That's an interesting concept. I'm not sure how many people would go to all that trouble (attorney, court, etc.) just because they saw a sign on a state building, however.

all it takes is one activist. if you empower the people, non profit organizations will spring up and make it their business. Now, I think it's sad that people have to be empowered by government to defend rights that shouldn't even be in question but here we are.

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.

1. Two tier CHL system where an applicant can, after having had his original CHL LTC for 5 years with no infractions, and with additional training, tougher practical test, etc. would have a higher level of CHL that allows them to carry anywhere a police officer can carry.

2. Removal of sales tax across the board (city and state) on firearms, ammunition, range fees, training, etc. After all they no longer tax the right to vote (poll tax).

3. A clear definition and/or map of where a verbal attack, which under law does not merit a use of force, and where verbal provocation which removes your right to defend with force, cross each other. It is a muddy legal area as is. A liberal jury could decide that me commenting, even if asked, on someone's political, religious, sexual preference that resulted in that person attacking me, could be considered provocation and would void my ability to use force to defend myself.

4. A $10,000 fine and 1 year in jail for any goof who displays the Texas flag upside down.

TEX wrote:1. Two tier CHL system where an applicant can, after having had his original CHL LTC for 5 years with no infractions, and with additional training, tougher practical test, etc. would have a higher level of CHL that allows them to carry anywhere a police officer can carry.

Or we could just pass a bill similar to last year's HB308, where an LTC holder can carry anywhere an officer can. Eliminates time and cost to develop and make a program for an "enhanced" LTC, and lessens restrictions for all current LTC holders.

locke_n_load wrote:
Or we could just pass a bill similar to last year's HB308, where an LTC holder can carry anywhere an officer can. Eliminates time and cost to develop and make a program for an "enhanced" LTC, and lessens restrictions for all current LTC holders.

locke_n_load wrote:

TEX wrote:1. Two tier CHL system where an applicant can, after having had his original CHL LTC for 5 years with no infractions, and with additional training, tougher practical test, etc. would have a higher level of CHL that allows them to carry anywhere a police officer can carry.

Or we could just pass a bill similar to last year's HB308, where an LTC holder can carry anywhere an officer can. Eliminates time and cost to develop and make a program for an "enhanced" LTC, and lessens restrictions for all current LTC holders.

Looking at the DPS data, LTC holders should be able to carry more places than off-duty cops, based on rate of offense.

I agree. The only places that a LTC holder would not be allowed to carry would be Court Rooms when court was in session (because a lot of places use the court rooms for other meetings and such), within the secure area of a prison and into the secure area of police and sherriff departments (jails). There should be no restrictions any other place.

MeMelYup wrote:I agree. The only places that a LTC holder would not be allowed to carry would be Court Rooms when court was in session (because a lot of places use the court rooms for other meetings and such), within the secure area of a prison and into the secure area of police and sherriff departments (jails). There should be no restrictions any other place.

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.

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.

KLB wrote:

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.

Plaintiff, defendant, witness, relation to the parties, etc.

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.

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

Designated Battle Buddy, like in South Carolina if I am not mistaken. Can carry gun into bars but not drink.