TexasCHLforum.com

Reply from my state senator (nothing from my rep, yet):

Mr. Craig,
Thanks for your email. I agree with you and have always and will
continue to fully support expanding right to carry.

Thanks again,
(senator)

I sent the following to my state rep and state senator, both with good TSRA and NRA ratings:

(Rep),

I enjoyed speaking with you about changes for 2009 at the (event) this past summer. Now that the new session is just around the corner, I wanted to touch base again on the issues that matter to me.

In the 2009 Legislative Session, there will be many bills proposed to change Texas firearms laws, both good and bad. I would like to share my thoughts on a couple of subjects, even though the potential proposed bills aren't yet available for review.

First: campus carry. There is no good reason why licensed, law-abiding adults should be disarmed just because they pass through a doorway. Current Texas law allows legal, licensed, concealed carry on school grounds, but not in school buildings.

"School" is not defined in the statutes, and could theoretically include a beauty school, dance school, Sunday school, pre-K daycare, or karate school. This has to be clarified in the statutes. Or even better, just remove all statutory prohibitions on school carry by legal, licensed adults.

Most, perhaps all, public colleges and universities forbid students from possessing any firearms at all while on campus. Since they are political subdivisions and taxing authorities of the State of Texas, no public post-secondary institution should be able to violate our strong preemption laws and restrict carry on campus by students or employees.

(Private schools at all levels, as private property owners, should continue to be able to restrict guns however they see fit, but no private property should ever be statutorily off-limits except through trespass laws.)

I urge you to support expanding legal concealed carry to anywhere the licensee may legally be. Governor Perry, after the Virginia Tech murders, said that he supports the same thing.

Second: open carry. Texas is one of only six states that outlaw open carry of handguns. With the added pain of wearing a jacket or cover garment in Texas summers, this is needlessly burdensome on Texans who lawfully carry handguns. There is no good reason why an adult who can legally carry a handgun, should not be able to do so openly.

Long-standing statutes about "deadly conduct" adequately cover brandishing or threatening. A handgun that is holstered and openly worn on a citizen's hip is no more threatening than it would be if covered by a shirt or jacket. Nor, for that matter, than it would be if it was on the hip of a peace officer in plain clothes.

So, my general request for 2009 is expanded gun freedom. Specifically, fewer places off limits by statute (all public schools and universities, and all private property), and fewer restrictions on mode of carry.

If you would like to discuss these issues, please don't hesitate to contact me by mail, or by phone at (number).

Thanks for your time,

Kevin Craig

Liberty wrote:

KBCraig wrote: He brought up parking lots, and his desire for a strong parking lot bill. We talked about the challenge of getting a bill passed in Texas with the number or large international corporations who oppose it. I didn't mention that I actually oppose such a bill as a violation of property owners' rights, because we just didn't have time for an in-depth discussion.

But what which property rights are more important? The Property rights of the car owner or the property rights of the publicly accessible parking lots. Should the parking lot owner employer have more property rights than the automobile owner?

Just as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, your right to do as you wish in or on your property, ends where my property begins. The parking lot owner can ban your car because it's an import, or a low-rider, or a monster truck, or too heavy for his lot, or too wide/long for his parking spaces, or because you've got Aggie plates. Or, because you've got a gun inside.

Just curious on your thought processes. My thinking is that a the privately owned car owner has more rights to privacy than the semipublic property owner has a right to access.

There's no such thing as "semipublic property". The legal construct of "a place of public accommodation", where owners are allowed little discretion about who enters, is itself an abrogation of property rights.

Property is either owned privately, owned publicly (by the people in common, or by the government), or it's unclaimed property (good luck finding any of that). A store with big flashing signs inviting the public is just as much private property as is your bedroom, and the owner should have just as much right to deny entry to his store, as you do at your home.

Bart wrote:That would be great. Repeal 46.035 and simplify 46.15 by getting rid of (a)(6) and fixing (a)(4) to say

a person who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;

Even better, make it "any person who may legally carry a concealed handgun". There are thousands of non-CHLs who legally carry concealed in Texas (like me).

Arrrrghh... I had a nice long post typed out last night, and the forum upgrade ate it.

Anyhoo... I buttonholed my state rep (TSRA rated A+) at our local Friends of the NRA banquet last night. I asked if he had any particular legislative action in mind for 2009 regarding guns; he said he didn't, so I started down my wish list.

First was my concern about rumored challenges to unlicensed car carry. He said any bills about that would have to go through his committee, and "I guarantee they're not going anywhere."

He brought up parking lots, and his desire for a strong parking lot bill. We talked about the challenge of getting a bill passed in Texas with the number or large international corporations who oppose it. I didn't mention that I actually oppose such a bill as a violation of property owners' rights, because we just didn't have time for an in-depth discussion.

I mentioned that I like 30.06 because it gives property owners the right to control their premises, but does so in a way that puts the burden on them. It is highly specific, and hard for a CHL to accidentally violate. I told him the one thing I would like to see improved (which was the reason for 30.06 in the first place), is the penalty enhancement for criminal trespass while in possession of a deadly weapon. That jumps the penalty from a Class C misdemeanor to Class A. Unlike other states, Texas doesn't have a "violation" level offense below Class C, but Class C sure beats Class A!

I told him I support legalized open carry for licensees at a minimum, and any non-prohibited person at best. He didn't seem to have considered it before; he was non-committal, but not opposed.

We only had about 15 minutes before he had to leave, so I didn't get around to "school" being undefined, and all the problems that creates. I would push for protecting all school carry for licensees, which negates the problem, but at the very least the code needs to define "school" and which schools are off-limits.

He comes from a family of educators, so I'm going to follow up with him and push that issue. I'm sure he'd like it if his mother could carry in her classroom.

Kevin

bdickens wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Russell wrote:Like was stated above, make it clear in the statutes that if a 30.06 sign is not posted on every entrance door accessible to the public, ...

The law doesn't say any such thing. It says notice must be posted "conspicuous to the public".

There's no requirement that every door be posted.

That should be the requirement.

What should, that every door be posted?

Posting on the doors themselves might not be conspicuous at all. Look at your typical busy store with automatic sliding doors: they're open most of the time, so shoppers approaching the doors could easily miss the notices.

Russell wrote:Like was stated above, make it clear in the statutes that if a 30.06 sign is not posted on every entrance door accessible to the public, ...

The law doesn't say any such thing. It says notice must be posted "conspicuous to the public".

There's no requirement that every door be posted.

tomneal wrote:Just a thought question

How would federal gun laws be affected if Texas passed a law stating that CHL holders were the Texas Militia?

Not at all. Federal gun laws don't have an exemption for membership in the state militia.