TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote: We've known about this since last session. In fact, I've been letting people know for a good while. The TAB is not in full support and it isn't a major sore spot with the business community. Andrea Bauer wants everyone to believe this, but it's not the case.

I certainly hope you're right. I've heard otherwise, but as you know, sometimes it's hard to sort it all out. This TAB memo excerpt from 2015 still doesn't look too gun-friendly, especially per the 2nd paragraph:

KLB wrote:Our comments are, insofar as I have noticed them, all about expanding our rights. That's a good thing to think about and to be prepared to address. But what if the anti-gunners have an agenda of their own? Has anyone given any thought to what they might try to roll back and how we might counter that? I was speaking to a friend who predicted this will be a rollback session for gun rights.

I was told by a senior senate staff member that the antis (e.g. the Moms) were going to make a real hard push to replace the 06/07 signs with downloadable gunbuster signs. They have the full support of the Texas Association of Businesses, which represents over 4,000 Texas businesses. The requirement to plaster the front of your business with the big, ugly current signage is reportedly a major sore spot in the business community. Just a heads-up.

booze97 wrote:
Tennessee's law goes into effect next week. Hopefully we can learn from it and put something in front of the legislature in 2017.

While I think it's a positive move, I don't see how it can stick legally. The customer knows before entering that guns aren't allowed, and then makes a concious decision to enter that restaurant instead of going somewhere else. Nobody forced him to go in. Does the Tennessee law somehow negate this angle?

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.

RoyGBiv wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

Whether that's true or not, any suggestion of allowing licensees to carry into schools is an absolute, instant non-starter.

gsansing wrote:1.)My fear is the OCT/CATI and others will be beating the banshee for constitutional carry in 2017, and 308 or similar bill will take the same course as in 2015.

Speaking of beating the banshee, I wonder what Stickland is going to come up with this time around....