Military Exemption

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
GreenGuy
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:57 pm
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

Military Exemption

#1

Post by GreenGuy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:01 pm

Does anyone know if anything is in the works for Texas Residents who are serving in the military to allow them to concealed carry just like an on duty cop would?

For instance this thread http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... php?t=2679 in the Georgia Packing website talks about how Georgia laws permits Military Members to carry into schools, bars, public gatherings and just about anywhere an on duty police officer can. You can even carry into the state capitol.

Now I know many of this board feel this right should be granted to all Texas Residents, and I agree, but would this be a first step? Or should our first step be bigger?
--GreenGuy


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

Re: Military Exemption

#2

Post by txinvestigator » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:06 pm

GreenGuy wrote:Does anyone know if anything is in the works for Texas Residents who are serving in the military to allow them to concealed carry just like an on duty cop would?

For instance this thread http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/vie ... php?t=2679 in the Georgia Packing website talks about how Georgia laws permits Military Members to carry into schools, bars, public gatherings and just about anywhere an on duty police officer can. You can even carry into the state capitol.

Now I know many of this board feel this right should be granted to all Texas Residents, and I agree, but would this be a first step? Or should our first step be bigger?


Currently;

§46.02. Unlawful carrying weapons.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun,
illegal knife, or club.



46.15 Non-Applicability
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(1) (As added by L.1997, chap. 1221(4). See other paragraph (1)
below.) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of
the armed forces or state military forces
as defined by Section
431.001, Government Code, or as an employee of a penal institution
who is performing a security function;

(1) (As added by L.1997, chap. 1261(28). See other paragraph
(1) above.) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member
of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section
431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal
institution;
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.


Topic author
GreenGuy
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:57 pm
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

#3

Post by GreenGuy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:10 pm

Yeah, I've see that, but GA laws doesn't have that little catch. GA laws says being in the military is good enough, you don't have to be "On Duty"

In GA you can be in the military and attending a college class, and carry your weapon where other CHL's can not simply because you are in the military. Not because you are doing military duties.

Now don't get me wrong, TX laws are way better than GA, but this one exemption that GA has is pretty nice.
--GreenGuy


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#4

Post by txinvestigator » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:13 pm

GreenGuy wrote:Yeah, I've see that, but GA laws doesn't have that little catch. GA laws says being in the military is good enough, you don't have to be "On Duty"

In GA you can be in the military and attending a college class, and carry your weapon where other CHL's can not simply because you are in the military. Not because you are doing military duties.

Now don't get me wrong, TX laws are way better than GA, but this one exemption that GA has is pretty nice.


I don't want an off duty Military to be able to carry unless he has a CHL. Many military members never qualify with a handgun, and unless they take a CHL class have no training in Texas use of force laws, etc.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.


Topic author
GreenGuy
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:57 pm
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

#5

Post by GreenGuy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:18 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
GreenGuy wrote:Yeah, I've see that, but GA laws doesn't have that little catch. GA laws says being in the military is good enough, you don't have to be "On Duty"

In GA you can be in the military and attending a college class, and carry your weapon where other CHL's can not simply because you are in the military. Not because you are doing military duties.

Now don't get me wrong, TX laws are way better than GA, but this one exemption that GA has is pretty nice.


I don't want an off duty Military to be able to carry unless he has a CHL. Many military members never qualify with a handgun, and unless they take a CHL class have no training in Texas use of force laws, etc.


Agreed.

Not the point though. Maybe it can be revised in TX, but none the less this is a law passed by GA that gives a certain group of individuals (military members) the same rights as law enforcement officers (with respect to places they can and can not carry)

That isn't enticing to you?
--GreenGuy


KBCraig
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

#6

Post by KBCraig » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:00 pm

txinvestigator wrote:I don't want an off duty Military to be able to carry unless he has a CHL.


I do. Along with you, me, and everyone else. Vermont style sounds great to me!


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#7

Post by txinvestigator » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:28 pm

GreenGuy wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
GreenGuy wrote:Yeah, I've see that, but GA laws doesn't have that little catch. GA laws says being in the military is good enough, you don't have to be "On Duty"

In GA you can be in the military and attending a college class, and carry your weapon where other CHL's can not simply because you are in the military. Not because you are doing military duties.

Now don't get me wrong, TX laws are way better than GA, but this one exemption that GA has is pretty nice.


I don't want an off duty Military to be able to carry unless he has a CHL. Many military members never qualify with a handgun, and unless they take a CHL class have no training in Texas use of force laws, etc.


Agreed.

Not the point though. Maybe it can be revised in TX, but none the less this is a law passed by GA that gives a certain group of individuals (military members) the same rights as law enforcement officers (with respect to places they can and can not carry)

That isn't enticing to you?


No, not without additional training. One reason LEOs have the rights to carry that they do is their sworn obligation to act in certain situations, their constant exposure to the criminal element, etc.

The military has different rules of engagement and a different oath. Different animals, if you will.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#8

Post by txinvestigator » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:29 pm

KBCraig wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:I don't want an off duty Military to be able to carry unless he has a CHL.


I do. Along with you, me, and everyone else. Vermont style sounds great to me!


You guys know I am pro, but giving everyone a gun is just bad business.
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.


Topic author
GreenGuy
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:57 pm
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

#9

Post by GreenGuy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:36 pm

txinvestigator wrote:
GreenGuy wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
GreenGuy wrote:
Agreed.

Not the point though. Maybe it can be revised in TX, but none the less this is a law passed by GA that gives a certain group of individuals (military members) the same rights as law enforcement officers (with respect to places they can and can not carry)

That isn't enticing to you?


No, not without additional training. One reason LEOs have the rights to carry that they do is their sworn obligation to act in certain situations, their constant exposure to the criminal element, etc.

The military has different rules of engagement and a different oath. Different animals, if you will.


Are you advocating the CHL Process be tougher?

I guess what I was seeing is that, The State of GA has recognized that there are other people out there, who are capable of carrying "just about everywhere"

Do you not see room for that in the Texas law?

If the GA law were to replace "Military" with "CHL Holder" does that make sense? Woud you support that in TX?

Or are you saying in order to carry in schools, bars, etc, you need more training than the CHL class currently provides?
--GreenGuy


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#10

Post by txinvestigator » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:55 pm

GreenGuy wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
GreenGuy wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:
GreenGuy wrote:
Agreed.

Not the point though. Maybe it can be revised in TX, but none the less this is a law passed by GA that gives a certain group of individuals (military members) the same rights as law enforcement officers (with respect to places they can and can not carry)

That isn't enticing to you?


No, not without additional training. One reason LEOs have the rights to carry that they do is their sworn obligation to act in certain situations, their constant exposure to the criminal element, etc.

The military has different rules of engagement and a different oath. Different animals, if you will.



Or are you saying in order to carry in schools, bars, etc, you need more training than the CHL class currently provides?


No, the CHL course is fine. I don't want off duty Military to be exempt from the CHL laws. I believe they should remove the carry restrctions for all CHL holders.

If thats what you meant, I missed it somewhere. :grin:
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.


Topic author
GreenGuy
Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 5:57 pm
Location: San Antonio
Contact:

#11

Post by GreenGuy » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:02 pm

Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?
--GreenGuy


kauboy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)

#12

Post by kauboy » Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:53 am

KBCraig wrote:
txinvestigator wrote:I don't want an off duty Military to be able to carry unless he has a CHL.


I do. Along with you, me, and everyone else. Vermont style sounds great to me!

I'm with ya here man. Every man, woman, and responsible child who is not and never has been a felon nor mentally ill (this part is fuzzy, who determines who is and who isn't?).
Until the "infringements" are removed, we will never really have the abilities that the 2nd amendment affords.
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V


txinvestigator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 4331
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 6:40 pm
Location: DFW area
Contact:

#13

Post by txinvestigator » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:52 am

GreenGuy wrote:Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?


Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether. ;-)
*CHL Instructor*


"Speed is Fine, but accuracy is final"- Bill Jordan

Remember those who died, remember those who killed them.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 7588
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089
Contact:

#14

Post by stevie_d_64 » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:43 am

txinvestigator wrote:I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether. ;-)


Instead of "special class" would you have also meant "exemption"???

And when you state "restrictions" do you mean places we can carry at? Such as, venues, events, and other facilities (in the law) that are allowed to restrict our carrying, yet are not required to post???

I actually think thats what you meant, but I am not a very good mind reader...

Y'all leave "Txi" alone! he's under a lot of stress and strain these days!

Pick on me instead...I'll show you! I'll just ignore ya... :lol:
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

#15

Post by jimlongley » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:13 am

New York State law used to exempt "military officers on active duty" from section 265 of the Penal Code, but they never defined "military officer" so the feeling was that NCOs(Non-commissioned officers), being, by definition, "officers" could carry.

Someone in the legislature caught on and changed it to:

(d) Persons in the military or other service of the United States, in
pursuit of official duty or when duly authorized by federal law,
regulation or order to possess the same.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”