TexasCHLforum.com

tomneal wrote:Schools / baby steps

Maybe the baby step is:

Colleges and universities.
Many of our legislatures considered that after Virginia Tech.

There wasn't time in 2007

It might be a tough sell in 2009, but...

They didn't even try in 2007.

When it comes to public institutions (agencies, schools, universities, etc.), aren't any rules concerning the wearing or bearing of arms contrary to the Texas constitution?

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

As the courts have held, only the Legislature has this authority; subordinate governments do not. The Legislature reinforced this when they made it clear that government agencies cannot use PC 30.06 to restrict CHLs. Local Government Code 229 also makes it clear that municipalities cannot restrict carrying of arms, although they can restrict some discharge of firearms (but not all).

Public universities, colleges, and schools are all "taxing authorities", whose boards are elected officials; they are governments. Is there a section of the statutes that authorizes them to restrict possession or carry of arms?

Most likely local regulations are invalid and would be found so in court, if anyone were arrested and tried.

It doesn't seem to happen. Either CHL holders are being careful or municipalities aren't serious about enforcement.

Schools are a special case. The legislature has made schools off-limits unless the local authorities give permission, and the local authorities do not.

- Jim

While my previous post was what I would really like, I agree that it isn't going to happen for awhile yet. We do need to take it in small incremental steps.

I think changing the definition of educational institutions to read primary and secondary schools is probably the best first step. It still protects kids (in the eyes of the liberals), and lets adults (almost all college students are legally adults) have the capability to defend themselves.

We could also work on some other small changes, like removing the requirement for hospitals to post (not the requirement that it be posted, but the other code that takes the option away from the hospital).

We might be able to get a section in that the ban for government meetings and courtrooms is only valid if there is a secure gun storage in that area too. Don't change the law o them being illegal yet, just a non-applicable if the secure storage is not provided.

And then if we remove the requirement to conceal for a CHL, we would have a good start for the next session.

In 2009 I would like to see active duty military allowed to carry anywhere a LEO can carry. ( I would like this to apply to all chl'ers but I think it would be easier to get the first bill passed with military personnel)

Of course I think schools should not be off limits to CHL's

We need to keep working on the things that didn't get passed this year.

Actually, what I would REALLY like to see is a national law prohibiting exemptions for the millitary/police in state laws regarding firearms.

Basically, if a civillian isn't allowed to have it, neither is the national guard of that state, or their police department.

Now, ok, I realise that a law like that is yet another obvious overextension of congressional authority, but it's a pipe dream I really like thinking about!

Nitrogen, we think alike! Including the reservation about federal legislation, even though we would enjoy the result.

I opposed LEOSA, even though I benefit from it. I don't believe Congress should pass laws that override state laws.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:.............. I don't believe Congress should pass laws that override state laws.

Kevin

I agree with that 100%. I would hate to have NY style gun laws.

Cut the CHL application fee by 75% for all persons.....

Roger Howard wrote:In 2009 I would like to see active duty military allowed to carry anywhere a LEO can carry. ( I would like this to apply to all chl'ers but I think it would be easier to get the first bill passed with military personnel)

Of course I think schools should not be off limits to CHL's

We need to keep working on the things that didn't get passed this year.

I respectfully disagree...

When an "active duty" person is acting in that capacity, they are only armed when acting under the civilian authority...Therefore, if they are "not" actively under orders and performing some task by their chain of command, and while armed, they have no status or authority greater than those of us in this forum...

There is no "baby steps" needing to be taken here to get "us" to be able to carry anywhere Law Enforcement is allowed to carry in this state...
We are either going to get legislation filed, debated, passed and signed into law, or we are not...

Remember the whole concept of the CHL in this state and others was to simply allow the law-abiding public with no felonious criminal history to carry a firearm for self-defensive purposes...This was a big step for some states to wrap around this idea...

In addition to that it is a personal decision that not all citizens take, which is extremely apparent in the percentages of licensees in each state that has a permitting system...

All of this almost goes unsaid...Sorry if I am preaching to the choir...

Creating law where some classes of citizens are allowed to carry in situations where others of equal qualifications and status are not, just because of a uniform, in this case, is something I do not agree with...And its not that I am jealous, or in need of equal consideration because I "used" to be in that boat...

I just do not believe it is necessary...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Creating law where some classes of citizens are allowed to carry in situations where others of equal qualifications and status are not, just because of a uniform, in this case, is something I do not agree with...

I agree. Someone who is in the military has no particular training in carrying a weapon in the civilian environment. A person who is "active duty military" could be a communications technician or medical personnel who hasn't touched a weapon since basic training.

When the CHL was first debated, people were afraid that CHL holders would "go off" in certain situations, so we got all the prohibited places in 46.035. I think the 12-year history of CHL holders now shows that they are unnecessary. (Does anyone honestly think a CHL holder is going to try to spring a prisoner from jail?)

- Jim

seeker_two wrote:Cut the CHL application fee by 75% for all persons.....

Part of the reason that we have our CHL status protected and out of public record is that the CHL program is not publicly funded. The operation of the CHL division is funded by the application fees. If the program were funded by the public at large, then it would be much more difficult to keep CHL info private. While I don't particularly enjoy paying the $120 to get a license, I happily pay that money to keep my status as a CHL holder private.

stevie_d_64 wrote: Creating law where some classes of citizens are allowed to carry in situations where others of equal qualifications and status are not, just because of a uniform, in this case, is something I do not agree with...And its not that I am jealous, or in need of equal consideration because I "used" to be in that boat...

I just do not believe it is necessary...

We do not need to go down the road where we create an unequal footing between different "classes" of citizens. CHL is a right to anyone without a specific type of criminal or psychological history. Within those guidelines, everyone is an equal. If we start creating classes of carry where some are more equal than others, we begin to create an elite group, and that leads to inequality regarding the exercise of our rights.

Renewal needs to get a bit easier.
I think that you should have to do these things for renewal:
1. Take the renewal class.
2. pass your target qualification.
3. Take paperwork to DPS office. Have picture taken. Pay nominal fee. License arrives in mail in three weeks.

This whole business of getting fingerprinted AGAIN, and sending everything through the mail is just tedious and silly. DPS has what is necessary to take care of this at the local level.

Venus Pax wrote:Renewal needs to get a bit easier.
I think that you should have to do these things for renewal:
1. Take the renewal class.
2. pass your target qualification.
3. Take paperwork to DPS office. Have picture taken. Pay nominal fee. License arrives in mail in three weeks.

This whole business of getting fingerprinted AGAIN, and sending everything through the mail is just tedious and silly. DPS has what is necessary to take care of this at the local level.

The only problem is that fingerprints can change. Not naturally, of course, but cuts and scars can change a person's fingerprints. But I have no problem with the idea of turning in the packets at the local DPS office. Of course who knows how long it would take to get to the central office in Austin from there...