TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:Also something else Charles,

I do still feel strongly about the gray area that 30.06 creates when signs don't have, for example, 1" lettering but everything else is correct. If I understand your new bill correctly, private business owners will still be able to post legally binding 30.06 signs.

If that is true, it appears your new bill does not cover the gray area issue. Is it possible to have something added to the bill so that a section is added to 30.06 clearly stating that if the sign does not meet ALL of the requirements, it is not legally binding, thereby allowing CHL holders to carry past the sign without fear of repercussions?

In Texas, bills are drafted as narrowly as possible to cover the subject matter. This is because amendments that are not germane to the bill cannot be tacked on, as is the case in the U.S. Congress. Adding anything to the bill that relates to TPC §30.06 is not only unnecessary to put CHLs on the same footing as LEOs, it would greatly expand the possibility of anti-gun amendments being added to the bill. This could either kill the bill, or result in us accepting adverse consequences to get the expanded authority. The risk is simply too high.

I have to agree that there is no ambiguity in TPC §30.06; the requirements are specific as to the language and physical requirements for a compliant sign. However, let's say a bill is introduced to amend TPC §30.06 to add the language you suggest. If it passed, then everything is fine and it is even more clear that a non-compliant sign is unenforceable. However, if it doesn't pass, either because people think it isn't necessary, or because tighter requirements aren't wanted by the new majority in Austin, then the failure of the bill would imply that the existing statute (TPC §30.06) does not require strict compliance with physical or language requirements. This is because there is a presumption in law that the legislature never passes an unnecessary bill and that the legislature never includes superfluous language in a bill. In other words, failing to get the bill passed would create the precise situation we don't want.

Chas.

sbb wrote:Thanks for your work on this issue, Charles. Do you think that this proposed ligislation has a hope of being brought to the floor. If it makes it to the floor what do you believe the odds are on passage?

Prior to Nov. 4th -- yes. Now it's uncertain since we still don't know who will control the Texas House and who will be Speaker. The Speaker of the House decides committee chairmanships as well as who will serve on what committees. He also assigns bills to specific committees.

We woke up to a new political world on Nov. 5th folks. What that world will look like and what it holds for us won't be known for a while. That's why it is critical that everyone who isn't an NRA member click on the link in the header and join. Also join TSRA (that link will be there soon). After joining both of those organizations, please consider joining the new Texas CHL Forum, Inc.

I'm going to write an article for the http://www.TexasCHLblog.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with a copy here talking about the need to rapidly and dramatically increase the membership of all three of those organizations, but I appreciate the opportunity to throw in a plug now.

Chas.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Russell wrote:It appears I'm the minority here on this one. Sounds fun


The law that allows LEO's to practically carry anywhere does not need to be changed. It is their job to apprehend criminals and prevent crime, therefor they need to have the authority and ability to do that.

It is not a CHL holders job to be an LEO. If private property is posted, so be it. Report it (texas3006.com), try to change the owner's mind (Hand out no guns no money cards), and then go somewhere else and talk with your dollars.

But above all, and I mean ABOVE ALL, respect private property rights, and that includes allowing the owner to restrict who, and what, he does not want on his land.

We can fight our fight, but that fight should not entail taking away private property owner's rights.

It is not our right to be on their land with something they don't want on there. Go purchase your stuff somewhere else if their business is posted.

That is my stance. :)

Exempting CHLs from both TPC§§ 46.02 and 46.03 (as are LEOs, judges, probation officers, railroad COPS, and many more) will allow CHLs to carry in places that would otherwise be off-limits under TPC §46.03 and 46.035. This has nothing to do with removing a private citizen's ability to post their property with 30.06 signs.

Chas.

Here is the statutory language I should have included earlier. LEOs cannot be prosecuted for criminal trespass if the sole reason for excluding them was the possession of a firearm. This is true even if the LEO is off-duty. (I don't want to get into an argument about "I'm always on-duty. No you aren't. You're always a LEO, but you're not always "on duty.") Remember, TPC §30.06 does not apply to armed LEOs since they wouldn't be carrying pursuant to the authority of their CHL, even if they have one. So the only basis for a criminal trespass charge against a LEO would be TPC §30.05.

Chas.

TPC 30.05 wrote:(i) This section [criminal trespass] does not apply if:

• (1) the basis on which entry on the property or land or in the building was forbidden is that entry with a handgun or other weapon was forbidden; and
  (2) the actor at the time of the offense was a peace officer, including a commissioned peace officer of a recognized state, or a special investigator under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator was engaged in the actual discharge of an official duty while carrying the weapon

.

Russell wrote:It appears I'm the minority here on this one. Sounds fun


The law that allows LEO's to practically carry anywhere does not need to be changed. It is their job to apprehend criminals and prevent crime, therefor they need to have the authority and ability to do that.

It is not a CHL holders job to be an LEO. If private property is posted, so be it. Report it (texas3006.com), try to change the owner's mind (Hand out no guns no money cards), and then go somewhere else and talk with your dollars.

But above all, and I mean ABOVE ALL, respect private property rights, and that includes allowing the owner to restrict who, and what, he does not want on his land.

We can fight our fight, but that fight should not entail taking away private property owner's rights.

It is not our right to be on their land with something they don't want on there. Go purchase your stuff somewhere else if their business is posted.

That is my stance. :)

Exempting CHLs from both TPC§§ 46.02 and 46.03 (as are LEOs, judges, probation officers, railroad COPS, and many more) will allow CHLs to carry in places that would otherwise be off-limits under TPC §46.03 and 46.035. This has nothing to do with removing a private citizen's ability to post their property with 30.06 signs.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:Just allow anyone with a CHL to carry anywhere LEO can carry.

Gov. Perry has stated his support for this idea.

Anygunanywhere

I wrote the bill within 3 days of Governor Perry making that statement.

Chas.