TexasCHLforum.com

rp_photo wrote:It would appear that Meadows Place is using "gun free/drug free signs" beyond their intended purpose:

Do you have a link to the text of the law? I couldn't find it on the website you linked. Thank you.

They also were well known as a major speed trap at least at one time. I think there are at least some there who are control freaks.

LDB415 wrote:They also were well known as a major speed trap at least at one time. I think there are at least some there who are control freaks.

When was this? I lived nearby and never worried about tickets passing through as long as I behaved in school zones.

1980's and maybe 1990's I think.

jamminbutter wrote:Doesn't state pre-emption apply to a city sans firing within city limits?

Yes. Posting the signs doesn't change the law. OCT is making a "tempest in a tea pot." The city cannot create gun free zones not created by state or federal law.

Chas.

Jumping Frog wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I received an email about this from someone, and I have contacted certain parties that I feel might need to know. My understanding is that OCT plans a march on the city for November 1st. Basically I have not had time to look into this so I am unsure of what is really going on, I will reserve judgement on the matter until I have a chance, and when I have that chance I will double check it to ensure I am not getting caught up in OCT's spin on things.

the Federal GFSZ act says no firearms within 1000 feet of a school,

I have consistently stated that getting arrested for a Federal GFSZ 1000 foot violation is as uncommon as a purple unicorn and not worth worrying about.

However, if unlicensed people with OCT stage a protest by carrying loaded firearms within the 1000 foot limit, they just might create the exception to the rule.

As to the other comments in this thread, the federal GFSZ restrictions to not apply to private property. Someone carrying on the sidewalk, in the streets, or in their car is subject to this idiotic law.

You are correct on both points. The GFSZ is rarely if every used as a stand-alone charge; it is stacked on to promote plea bargains.

It is my professional opinion that the CHL exception to this federal law would apply not only to licenses issued by the state in which the school is located (as the law states), but also to any license recognized by that state. However, there has been no test case on this issue so my opinion is meaningless. I share your concern that if the OCT founder goes to the proposed Meadows Place demonstration with a firearm and is inside a GFSZ, he could well be the test case since everyone in Texas law enforcement knows he no longer has a Texas CHL. In the event he has a license from another state, which I doubt with a recent misdemeanor conviction, he is not the person I would choose to be the test case. There's an old adage known well by Texas lawyers, "bad facts make bad law, so choose your [appellate] clients carefully."

In recent weeks, OCT has been branching out, shall we say, far beyond the open-carry issue. As an organization it is becoming just another radical "everything now or nothing" political group following the model of NAGR and GOA. Meadows Place has nothing to do with open-carry and the planned/proposed demonstration there does not serve to pass open-carry in 2015.

I wonder how many of the people who registered for their private Facebook group, or who "liked" their Facebook page, intended their names to support issues and causes beyond open-carry? As a ham operator, I am a member of the ARRL -- the NRA of amateur radio. As an ARRL Member, I wouldn't appreciate it if that organization started supporting Bloomberg gun laws. As an NRA Member, I wouldn't like it if the NRA were to start pushing H.R.4969 filed on behalf of the ARRL seeking to void most HOA restrictions on radio antennas and methods of installation (such as towers). It seems to be yet another bait-and-switch.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I received an email about this from someone, and I have contacted certain parties that I feel might need to know. My understanding is that OCT plans a march on the city for November 1st. Basically I have not had time to look into this so I am unsure of what is really going on, I will reserve judgement on the matter until I have a chance, and when I have that chance I will double check it to ensure I am not getting caught up in OCT's spin on things.

the Federal GFSZ act says no firearms within 1000 feet of a school,

I have consistently stated that getting arrested for a Federal GFSZ 1000 foot violation is as uncommon as a purple unicorn and not worth worrying about.

However, if unlicensed people with OCT stage a protest by carrying loaded firearms within the 1000 foot limit, they just might create the exception to the rule.

As to the other comments in this thread, the federal GFSZ restrictions to not apply to private property. Someone carrying on the sidewalk, in the streets, or in their car is subject to this idiotic law.

You are correct on both points. The GFSZ is rarely if every used as a stand-alone charge; it is stacked on to promote plea bargains.

It is my professional opinion that the CHL exception to this federal law would apply not only to licenses issued by the state in which the school is located (as the law states), but also to any license recognized by that state. However, there has been no test case on this issue so my opinion is meaningless. I share your concern that if the OCT founder goes to the proposed Meadows Place demonstration with a firearm and is inside a GFSZ, he could well be the test case since everyone in Texas law enforcement knows he no longer has a Texas CHL. In the event he has a license from another state, which I doubt with a recent misdemeanor conviction, he is not the person I would choose to be the test case. There's an old adage known well by Texas lawyers, "bad facts make bad law, so choose your [appellate] clients carefully."

In recent weeks, OCT has been branching out, shall we say, far beyond the open-carry issue. As an organization it is becoming just another radical "everything now or nothing" political group following the model of NAGR and GOA. Meadows Place has nothing to do with open-carry and the planned/proposed demonstration there does not serve to pass open-carry in 2015.

I wonder how many of the people who registered for their private Facebook group, or who "liked" their Facebook page, intended their names to support issues and causes beyond open-carry? As a ham operator, I am a member of the ARRL -- the NRA of amateur radio. As an ARRL Member, I wouldn't appreciate it if that organization started supporting Bloomberg gun laws. As an NRA Member, I wouldn't like it if the NRA were to start pushing H.R.4969 filed on behalf of the ARRL seeking to void most HOA restrictions on radio antennas and methods of installation (such as towers). It seems to be yet another bait-and-switch.

Chas.

^^^^This man speaks the truth.

I have finally had time to start looking into the Meadows Place situation. They have no ordinances mentioning weapons or firearms that would establish a gun free zone. They do have an ordinance relating to child access that is similar to the state law, although it is worded slightly different and could be seen as being in conflict with the preemption law.

Their other firearms ordinances relate to the discharge of firearms, airguns, and the usual.

rp_photo wrote:It would appear that Meadows Place is using "gun free/drug free signs" beyond their intended purpose:

http://cityofmeadowsplace.org/departmen ... pon-zones/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The web page says "At the September 2004 City Council meeting, council with the help of the police department adopted an ordinance establishing these zones in our city." I can't find this alleged ordinance anywhere in the online muni code sites, even though they say it was passed ten years ago.

My wife has suggested OCT is being paid by the anti-gun crowd to stir up all the trouble.

The city uses the gun free school zones as an add on charge, if applicable, since most of their 2.2 square mile city is within the limits of the gun free school zone.

gregthehand wrote:The city uses the gun free school zones as an add on charge, if applicable, since most of their 2.2 square mile city is within the limits of the gun free school zone.

Not quite as simple as it appears. The GFSZ is federal law and such charges need to be brought to federal court by the US Attorney's office. The city can't just arrest them with an ordinary city policeman and have them summoned to county court.

Dragonfighter wrote:My wife has suggested OCT is being paid by the anti-gun crowd to stir up all the trouble.

Your wife sounds like a very smart and perceptive woman.

Jumping Frog wrote: I have consistently stated that getting arrested for a Federal GFSZ 1000 foot violation is as uncommon as a purple unicorn and not worth worrying about.
However, if unlicensed people with OCT stage a protest by carrying loaded firearms within the 1000 foot limit, they just might create the exception to the rule.

I agree with you. But there are two problems:
1) Most CHLers are law-abiding citizens and want to adhere to laws. Being a purple unicorn doesn't necessarily change how the law reads.
2) It might, perhaps, give officers an "out" in regard to enforcing the purple unicorn - they have a basis for enforcement.

LDB415 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:My wife has suggested OCT is being paid by the anti-gun crowd to stir up all the trouble.

Your wife sounds like a very smart and perceptive woman.

Yup, married way above my pay grade.