TexasCHLforum.com

Glockster wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?

I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.

Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban.

Vol Texan wrote:

RetNavy wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?

Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.

Chas.

I'm pro 2A, obviously, and really don't want to discriminate against anyone ... but a blind shooter?? C'mon...

I remember laughing hard when I saw an elevator that had the federally mandated braille numbers and wording on it's signage. It was funny because it was a parking garage elevator; but hey, rules is rules...

cant be any different than the braille keypads on drive thru atm's

I suggest you all read this posting about a blind lady with a CHL: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=77580&p=981812

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?

Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Were they just bluffing about the filibuster?

No. The Bill came up too early for them to have a chance. It's 54 hours to the end of the session. (That was no accident.)

Chas.

arthurcw wrote:

K5GU wrote: After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.

That's the historical precedent. An exposed weapon has always been a symbol of power/citizenship. Concealed weapons were always something for people up to no good like thieves, con men, gamblers, ladies of negotiable affection, and lawyers (Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't ban me Charles). Which is why I HATE the term "Constitutional Carry." Yes, I know that's gonna get me flamed. But in the context the Constitution was written, they had these ideas in mind. Original Intent, I believe, was to allow all citizens to openly carry as a symbol of the new power structure. Concealed weapons were kinda taboo. So I don't have a problem with states regulating concealed carry*. But unlicensed open carry should be a the norm. Because if you're up to something you want to appear weak and harmless. Cops know this.

When they (LEOs) see a $50-$200 holster and a guy walking calmly with his family they aren't gonna say, "hmmm... PERP!" ...unless they have no option because of a CLEO's directives.


* and if the state wants to allow concealment with no licence, I'm cool with that. They've made their choice of regulations. None.

The Wall wrote:Well we could do it like I had to do while working at an airport. If working in a secure area of the airport you had to have your ID displayed at all times. Most of us used lanyards and had them hanging around our necks. We were all required to confront anyone that wasn't displaying their ID. If they couldn't display a proper airport ID the police were called. TSA would periodically send people out into the secure areas without ID to test it out. If you neglected to confront/challenge the individual you could get in some real trouble including losing your job. The airport would be fined. I manage to nab several of them in the years I worked there. I'm not serious about this for open carry by the way. Just telling a story. I know it was already suggested wearing some kind of badge. A stupid idea for sure.

locke_n_load wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I also like the suggestion I saw earlier that if he does insist you can't leave and must show your CHL; politely comply, get his name and badge number, and then the following day do a FOIA request on the report.

Every time it happens. It will be good fodder if the amendment comes up again.

I think this is probably the best response with the addition of making it 100% plain that you are complying under duress (it is a non-consensual encounter after all). When completing the FOIA request, also ask for any dispatch notes, 911 Calls, dash cam video and all other material related to the non-consensual encounter. It avoids antagonizing on the spot, shows that CHL holders are very reasonable people and also allows them to hoist themselves on their own petard.

If this happens often enough and enough complaints are filed at the local and state level, eventually officers and their leaders will get the hint and train accordingly.

I'm in Houston, and I think the leading forces of HPD and Harris County would take complaints from OCers as badges of honor.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip, I have a CHL and am Open Carrying, and just walking, minding my own business. Can a cop come up and ask for my license? Would I legally have to give it to him? Can I tell him no, that I have a CHL but don't wish to give it to him, that it's included in the 4th amendment? I know that the penal code says that I must produce my license if I am concealed carrying, just wondering how all this would go with OC.
Thanks.

No, he cannot. It's already settled by SCOTUS. he has to be able to articulate a reason.......which is not that hard......but it has to be plausible.

Ruark wrote:

twomillenium wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip......

My understanding is that the law is the law whether or not it is repeatedly defined in each and every law passed. A person minding his own business and not breaking any laws should not be stopped by LEOs just to see if he is really not breaking the law.

What "should" not happen and what DOES happen are two different things. It appears that a HUGE number of LEOs out there believe that this amendment was the only thing that stood between them and investigatory stops. That's why they were so hysterical about it. Now that the amendment's been removed, I assume most of them will now think, "hey, it didn't pass, so it's OK to stop'em." And a lot of them will. Sure, many LEOs are decent people, but there are more than a few jerks out there wearing badges. Those guys are going to relish this legislative "green light."

Texas_Blaze wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip, I have a CHL and am Open Carrying, and just walking, minding my own business. Can a cop come up and ask for my license? Would I legally have to give it to him? Can I tell him no, that I have a CHL but don't wish to give it to him, that it's included in the 4th amendment? I know that the penal code says that I must produce my license if I am concealed carrying, just wondering how all this would go with OC.
Thanks.

I would ask the officer politely if I am violating any laws, and if not, I would ask can I now leave? that is all I would say, over and over. Video will be good to have. We know it will happen. I think if it happens often, lawsuits will remedy the issue. If courts don't rule in the favor of the person carrying the gun, then there is the answer. Cops can do what you are hypothetically proposing.

FormerTSgt wrote:

Ruark wrote:According to:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 10#vote759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conference committee report has been filed! Does anybody have any details?

That seems... fast. If they agreed on changes then it now has to pass the Senate and the House, correct? If that's so then the filibuster will kill it. Huffines ruined open carry for Texas. Others share some blame, but most of it can be laid squarely at his feet.

Scott Farkus wrote:Some Dem will filibuster no matter what.

harrycallahan wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

From the news. It has been reported that up to 75 % of the arrests did not have any prior criminal history. Additionally I have also seen a video interview where in it a member of one of the biker clubs (gangs) claims that he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL. I say claimed, because that is protect information and it won't be released. Whether it is true or not, it is the card law enforcement played to strike down HB 910. You've got to see that! In the house debate they did everything but spell it our for you by using key word after key word. Safety, tool box, hand cuff, protect ect...

safety1 wrote:

PBR wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

same here, while they might of had one I havent seen or heard of any that did or at least saying they did

If they did what does it matter???

PBR wrote:

ELB wrote:
Your plan kills the bill. See HarryCallahan's post above.

ok guess I read it wrong or it was posted wrong but someone posted from one of the politicians tweet or facebook post that if an agreement could not be reached it could go back to the house for 2nd concur vote. will have to try and find that post now to see