TexasCHLforum.com

roadkill wrote:

jmorris wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

Jusme wrote:If they want to sue someone, they need to go after the Air Force, for failing to report the shooter's disqualifying background.

Lawyer in SA, name escapes me, advertises he's doing so and for those affected to contact him.

Local big truck accident ambulance chaser Thomas J Henry was calling for an investigation into how he slipped thru the cracks. Wasn’t him was it?

That's him.

bblhd672 wrote:

Jusme wrote:If they want to sue someone, they need to go after the Air Force, for failing to report the shooter's disqualifying background.

Lawyer in SA, name escapes me, advertises he's doing so and for those affected to contact him.

rtschl wrote:....

I do not find it confusing, as the phrase "do not apply" is crystal clear. But I do think it trips up to too many people as I have had this discussion many times. This included CHL and Security instructors in the past claiming DPS was telling them that it was still prohibited. I believe that practice was stopped with your help. I still have had to show people including LEOs the full text - which I have subsection "i" highlighted and in bold on my phone.

At the instructor class, Jan 2016, when going over prohibited places the DPS instructor had a slide for each section. I don't have the handouts with me but the slide was something like:

In a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship

Must be posted in accordance with PC 30

A person sitting behind me turned to the person sitting beside him and said "So, you still can't carry in church?" On none of the slides did the instructor insure that everyone understood what the bottom line meant. Maybe they do now.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:.....
There is nothing confusing about §46.03(i); people simply quit reading too soon. Read together, it is absolutely clear that churches,etc. are not off-limits unless they receive notice pursuant to TPC §30.06. If LTCs are not aware of this fact, then their LTC Instructor let them down in a very big way.

Chas.

And LEOs. My church didn't even consider putting up 06/07. Not because they are pro-gun (which most are by the way) but because a detective sergeant told them church carry was prohibited. Evidently no one on the safety committee holds an LTC. Or maybe they do and figured ignorance was one way of keeping signs away.

allisji wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... b01350652b

this small town’s residents had just learned, mostly by word of mouth, the names of the people slain or wounded at the First Baptist Church, and the horror unleashed by a gunman was too fresh for anyone to process fully. But one thing was emphatically clear Monday: These Texans weren’t about to embrace gun control

that is all

it's really a good article, but... to me anyway...it sort of implies that guns are not allowed in church in Texas, did anyone else read the end of it that way?

I'm sure that they always first assume that guns aren't allowed until they are told otherwise. That is the way that they have been brainwashed.

They stopped reading at 46.035 (b)(6). Common enough problem even among licence holders.

Just reported shooter had three wounds, two inflicted by good guy. One leg, one torso. Third was self-inflicted, head.

But did the DPS representative have to say assault-type rifle? I thought better of DPS.