TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have written a bill but I can't say more at this time.

Chas.

I hope it includes doubling the fines for any governmental body that allows or fails to prevent a private entity from posting.

The fine for a political subdivision has shown to not be a deterrent to several political subdivisions - increasing it would not change it - because it is taxpayer money, not the official's making the policy. We need to hold the policymakers financially responsible, as well as those enforcing said rule via signage or physically barring LTC holder from entering the property. Giving monetary damages to license holders wrongfully excluded from such property would be a plus as well.

Russell wrote:

mr1337 wrote:The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

Bingo.

For all purposes anybody here wants to describe or argue, they are enforceable until we get law in place to stop it.

Nobody here is going to win an argument with private security nor a police officer over 30.06 signage not being technically enforceable.

This.

I challenged a private security firm who was manning a wanding station at a City of Lewisville event a couple of years ago. I told them that I didn't want to be wanded and asked to speak to a supervisor. Instead, I got to speak with two of Lewsiville's finest. I showed the officer my then CHL and he asked if I had showed that the private security person. I told him no because I didn't want to get into a he said-she said about whether the private security firm had the authority to give me verbal notice. In the end, the officer escorted me through the wanding process (and of course the wand barked at both my gun and my spare mag) and we talked for a couple of minutes after I was inside. The officers knew that CHL could not be rejected on a city sponsored event It turned out that the same private security had tried to reject one an off duty officer who was carrying earlier that day.

BTW, Lewisville now posts the entire downtown area as 51%. Our problem is not just 30.06 signs.

chasfm11 wrote:

Russell wrote:

mr1337 wrote:The question comes when the private entity refuses entry or asks the license holder to leave based on the fact that the license holder is carrying.

Bingo.

For all purposes anybody here wants to describe or argue, they are enforceable until we get law in place to stop it.

Nobody here is going to win an argument with private security nor a police officer over 30.06 signage not being technically enforceable.

This.

I challenged a private security firm who was manning a wanding station at a City of Lewisville event a couple of years ago. I told them that I didn't want to be wanded and asked to speak to a supervisor. Instead, I got to speak with two of Lewsiville's finest. I showed the officer my then CHL and he asked if I had showed that the private security person. I told him no because I didn't want to get into a he said-she said about whether the private security firm had the authority to give me verbal notice. In the end, the officer escorted me through the wanding process (and of course the wand barked at both my gun and my spare mag) and we talked for a couple of minutes after I was inside. The officers knew that CHL could not be rejected on a city sponsored event It turned out that the same private security had tried to reject one an off duty officer who was carrying earlier that day.

BTW, Lewisville now posts the entire downtown area as 51%. Our problem is not just 30.06 signs.

That is funny. 51% only applies to premises, not property, so 51% signs do not apply to outdoor areas. But nonetheless I bet it is enforced (and they would try to charge you for the felony instead of misdemeanor).

The real solution is to make it a class A misdemeanor to prevent access to taxpayer funded property because the taxpayer is legally armed, if the property is not off limits in 46.03 or 46.035. Felony upgrade if the individual denying access is armed or assaults (using the strict legal definition) the LTC to deny or curtail access.

No exemption for peace officers, special invistigaors, or other special snowflakes. .

ScottDLS wrote::So here we are 15 months after "fines for signs" and no fine has yet been levied.

That's not surprising. Political subdivisions not wanting to comply (which is most of them) read the law and, instead of flagrantly flouting it, looked for ways to game compliance. It's hard to corral people who have resources and immunity and who are determined not to comply with the law. This effect is evident in areas other than firearms.

Russell wrote:Are there any bills filed, or in the plans of being filed, that will prohibit this terrible loophole of a private entity leasing a building that is paid for by our tax dollars, and therefor being allowed by the recent AG rulings to post enforceable 30.06/30.07 signage?

I am all for private property rights when it's private money that built the structure, not my tax dollars.

Have we've seen any more progress in this area? It's my understanding that the deadline to file bills has passed, but I don't remember hearing about any bills to address this issue.

TrueFlog wrote:

Russell wrote:Are there any bills filed, or in the plans of being filed, that will prohibit this terrible loophole of a private entity leasing a building that is paid for by our tax dollars, and therefor being allowed by the recent AG rulings to post enforceable 30.06/30.07 signage?

I am all for private property rights when it's private money that built the structure, not my tax dollars.

Have we've seen any more progress in this area? It's my understanding that the deadline to file bills has passed, but I don't remember hearing about any bills to address this issue.

Nothing was filed this session. There is a reason, but I can't go into it.

Chas.

I assume we will discover why eventually. Can you tell us when ?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

Russell wrote:Are there any bills filed, or in the plans of being filed, that will prohibit this terrible loophole of a private entity leasing a building that is paid for by our tax dollars, and therefor being allowed by the recent AG rulings to post enforceable 30.06/30.07 signage?

I am all for private property rights when it's private money that built the structure, not my tax dollars.

Have we've seen any more progress in this area? It's my understanding that the deadline to file bills has passed, but I don't remember hearing about any bills to address this issue.

Nothing was filed this session. There is a reason, but I can't go into it.

Chas.

So does that mean two more years of being refused entry to government property controlled by non-profit organizations?

OldAg wrote:
So does that mean two more years of being refused entry to government property controlled by non-profit organizations?

At least that long, except maybe for those who take inspiration from Stamp Act protests 250 years ago.

Lambda Force wrote:

OldAg wrote:
So does that mean two more years of being refused entry to government property controlled by non-profit organizations?

At least that long, except maybe for those who take inspiration from Stamp Act protests 250 years ago.

It will be a lot longer than that unless our legislators grow a spine. HB560 is a prime example. Of course OCT is in favor of HB1911. Probably had nothing to say about 560 and thus it died.

m

This is not going to be solved by a bill. The evildoers have shown they will lie and cheat, twist and ignore laws, and abuse their office to violate our civil rights. As their type have done throughout recorded history, until The People say enough.

doncb wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:

OldAg wrote:
So does that mean two more years of being refused entry to government property controlled by non-profit organizations?

At least that long, except maybe for those who take inspiration from Stamp Act protests 250 years ago.

It will be a lot longer than that unless our legislators grow a spine. HB560 is a prime example. Of course OCT is in favor of HB1911. Probably had nothing to say about 560 and thus it died.

I feel like a lot died to make HB1911 have a shot, and I'm very disappointed in that.

With a little over a month left in this session I'm going to remain optimistic that at least one big pro-gun bill passes.

What is discouraging is that HB560 died without a vote without even a discussion. It disappointing to get beaten after a good fight, but frustrating as all Hades to get beaten silently without even a whimper of protest. We get a compromise of $70 renewall instead of free.

Meanwhile, OCT moves on. They get their open carry last year, maybe CC this year. They aren't being so quiet about things. Maybe the loudmouths win.