TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Wes wrote:

jmra wrote:2, 3, and 5 in that order. Would also like to see the penalty in 30.06 lowered.

You mentioned before Charles that this would have to be accompanied with another bill, is that an option with any of the above?

If you mean the reduction of penalty for TPC §30.06, then no, it wouldn't be germane to any of the bills/issues listed. It's one of the things I mentioned that I would like to do, but it wouldn't have an impact on many people. That's why I didn't include it in the poll list.

Chas.

Understandable, wouldn't have been one of my top four either just curious. Thx

gringo pistolero wrote:Repeal of all off-limits areas for Texas CHLs (excluding federal laws)

For me, that's more useful than everything else combined.

By far.

Would be nice if the forum software could support polls by weighting.
If every voter gets 10 points to award, I would have given 8 points to HB3218 and the remaining 2 to OC.

Please let us know what we can do to support this bill (its 2015 replacement, obviously) in 2015.

Jim Beaux wrote:I was surprised at the number who selected #9 -

"Repeal TPC §42.01(a)(8) make it unlawful to display a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm."

Maybe Im missing something here, but why should this law be repealed?

BTW Good survey.

It's unnecessary because other charges can be filed such as assault and terroristic threat, if the person truly does something threatening. As currently written, it has been and will continue to be abused by LEOs and prosecutors because it is so vague and nonspecific as to the elements of the crime. "Calculated to cause alarm" by whom? Does it mean the person with the gun, the general public, the person who has an irrational fear of all firearms, or any or all of those people? It should be repealed regardless whether open-carry passes, but it will be a critical piece of legislation if open-carry does pass.

Chas.

Would #2 cover Campus carry?

suthdj wrote:Would #2 cover Campus carry?

It would no longer be unlawful, but it wouldn't prevent schools from having no-gun policies for students or employees. They could then be expelled or fired.

Private colleges could still use TPC §30.06 to exclude armed CHLs, but public schools could not.

Chas.

Edited to add: All of the above about school policies do not apply to school parking lots where students and employees can have guns.

As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

Would I like to see a penalty? Certainly.
Do I give it that much priority? No. I'd put it near the bottom of my list.

Getting 3218 passed obviates this problem.

5. Create a substantial civil penalty for governmental agencies and political subdivisions that post unenforceable 30.06 signs [HB508 in 2013];

RoyGBiv wrote:As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

Would I like to see a penalty? Certainly.
Do I give it that much priority? No. I'd put it near the bottom of my list.

Getting 3218 passed obviates this problem.

5. Create a substantial civil penalty for governmental agencies and political subdivisions that post unenforceable 30.06 signs [HB508 in 2013];

I was thinking something similar.

Would #9 (repeal law "...to cause alarm...") effectively make printing legal without question?

RoyGBiv wrote:As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

I use the gun show issue:
When the gun show is at Pasadena Convention Center, owned by the City of Pasadena, and they have 30.06 warnings, with police officers inside also asking you (sometimes) if you have a gun on you, etc, and threatening to arrest you if you carry past the sign, then for that reason I felt this needed to be a topic to be fixed

I cannot take the chance to be arrested, even if they have no case.
I don't have the extra money just laying around to fight the case
I don't have a bank full of money to use when I cannot work, as I am in Jail, or have an issue which now prevents me from doing my job.

There are many other instances where they wrongfully post the 30.06, KNOWINGLY. and it needs to stop.

Teamless wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

I use the gun show issue:
When the gun show is at Pasadena Convention Center, owned by the City of Pasadena, and they have 30.06 warnings, with police officers inside also asking you (sometimes) if you have a gun on you, etc, and threatening to arrest you if you carry past the sign, then for that reason I felt this needed to be a topic to be fixed

I cannot take the chance to be arrested, even if they have no case.
I don't have the extra money just laying around to fight the case
I don't have a bank full of money to use when I cannot work, as I am in Jail, or have an issue which now prevents me from doing my job.

There are many other instances where they wrongfully post the 30.06, KNOWINGLY. and it needs to stop.

I couldn't agree with you more. Any instance where it further clarifies existing rights are important. I know I won't get the rap, I don't want the ride either if I've done absolutely nothing wrong.

TVGuy wrote:

Teamless wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:As much as #5 is an annoyance, I'm surprised it's getting so many votes.
If I know a sign is unenforceable, I ignore it.

I use the gun show issue:
When the gun show is at Pasadena Convention Center, owned by the City of Pasadena, and they have 30.06 warnings, with police officers inside also asking you (sometimes) if you have a gun on you, etc, and threatening to arrest you if you carry past the sign, then for that reason I felt this needed to be a topic to be fixed

I cannot take the chance to be arrested, even if they have no case.
I don't have the extra money just laying around to fight the case
I don't have a bank full of money to use when I cannot work, as I am in Jail, or have an issue which now prevents me from doing my job.

There are many other instances where they wrongfully post the 30.06, KNOWINGLY. and it needs to stop.

I couldn't agree with you more. Any instance where it further clarifies existing rights are important. I know I won't get the rap, I don't want the ride either if I've done absolutely nothing wrong.

Sorry guys... I didn't intend to derail the thread...
I'd retract my comments if I could.

Just to reiterate... I do agree it's a good issue to pursue.

TVGuy wrote:Would #9 (repeal law "...to cause alarm...") effectively make printing legal without question?

IANAL, but i would say no. That would be failure to conceal. Not displaying in a manner calculated to cause alarm.

With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I was surprised at the number who selected #9 -

"Repeal TPC §42.01(a)(8) make it unlawful to display a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to cause alarm."

Maybe Im missing something here, but why should this law be repealed?

BTW Good survey.

It's unnecessary because other charges can be filed such as assault and terroristic threat, if the person truly does something threatening. As currently written, it has been and will continue to be abused by LEOs and prosecutors because it is so vague and nonspecific as to the elements of the crime. "Calculated to cause alarm" by whom? Does it mean the person with the gun, the general public, the person who has an irrational fear of all firearms, or any or all of those people? It should be repealed regardless whether open-carry passes, but it will be a critical piece of legislation if open-carry does pass.

Chas.

Makes sense.

....course the lib press would have a field day with this if it was repealed - "ILL BRED TEXANS NOW PERMITTED TO SHAKE THEIR GUN GORGED FISTS AT ONE OTHER!"

RPBrown wrote:With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.