Search found 9 matches

by Russell
Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:11 am
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Fair enough! Thanks for clearing that up.
by Russell
Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:16 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

3dfxMM wrote:The law is very clear regarding what constitutes a legal 30.06 sign. What about it do you see as a gray area?

The law may be clear, but there are still many businesses that will post a 30.06 sign and not have the lettering 1", or not include the Spanish translation, and that creates a gray area where a CHL holder may think they are in the right by ignoring the sign, but an officer just arrests them and lets the courts figure it out. This is wrong, and is not the way it should be, but I fear it would happen this way.

If you search these forums, you will see many expressing the same sentiments, that there is a gray area there where many "don't want to be the test case". I believe that if something were added to the statute that would expressly state that if a business does not follow the requirements to a "T", and that a CHL holder cannot be arrested or sued for ignoring the sign, it would take away this uncertainty.
by Russell
Thu Nov 06, 2008 1:54 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

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?
by Russell
Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:17 am
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

aardwolf wrote:
Russell wrote: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.
Including government employees who don't have a search warrant, right? If a restaurant can ban me from carrying a concealed handgun when I eat lunch there, they should also be able to ban a government employee from carrying a gun while eating lunch there.

A place already does that, the House of Blues. I also happen to agree with that. If an Officer is off duty, a business *should* be able to ban them from carrying off duty if they so chose to.

That may just make it so that when that business ends up needing police help they might be a little slow to respond, but so be it. That place made their own bed and they can now lay in it ;-)
by Russell
Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:52 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Haha!

I don't know if anyone could handle me excited.

I already drive Allison nuts when I buy something for my computer and have to wait for it to arrive. I don't know how I would react if the bill goes through and have to wait for it to go into effect.
by Russell
Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:18 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

That sounds like a great bill Charles, and I really hope it goes through.

I would be very excited :woohoo
by Russell
Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:55 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

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


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. :)
by Russell
Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:13 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

Sorry, but I disagree. I do not think CHL holders should be able to carry anywhere LEO's can, do to the fact that that really would go against private property rights.

We need to start small, and clarifying the few things I mentioned up above would be leaps and bounds above what we have right now.
by Russell
Wed Nov 05, 2008 2:04 pm
Forum: 2007 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: 2009 needs to be a clarification year
Replies: 27
Views: 9117

2009 needs to be a clarification year

All of the stuff we have been able to get passed in 2007 is great.

But..


There is enough gray areas, that we need to take this year to get bills passed to make them no longer gray. We spend way too much time hashing out the details and whether or not so-and-so is going to get me arrested, and not enough time actually enjoying the freedom we have in Texas.

My wish list for this is:

1. Add a section to PC 30.06 that clearly specifies that if a 30.06 sign does not meet all of the requirements listed (1 inch lettering, Spanish translation, EXACT wording specified), a CHL holder cannot be prosecuted or sued for carrying into the business in question. Seriously, with the amount of posts that say "But I don't want to be a test case", you would think the specifications for a 30.06 sign doesn't exist!

2. Add a section to 40.03/.035 (I don't remember which one has this, I don't have the laws in front of me) that specifies that the law regarding not carrying during an educational event that is off the grounds of the educational institution ONLY applies to the students and faculty of the educational institution that are actually taking part in the event in an official capacity, and no one else. This would allow for a teacher or student of the educational institution that may be at the park/zoo/whatever to be on the same grounds as the event and carry without fear of being prosecuted, even though they are not taking part in the event in an official role. This would also take away the gray area that exists with other CHL holders, IE, "I just saw a bunch of students on a field trip enter the zoo, can I carry?"

3. Add a law that flat out prohibits governmental offices and buildings from posting 30.06 signs, and add a new sign that only governmental buildings that have courts or offices utilized by the court must post to notify CHL holders that they cannot carry there. I know that technically governmental buildings that do not meet the court/offices utilized by the court cannot enforce a 30.06 sign, but there is still a gray area there where CHL holders do not want to be the "test case", and until they are prohibited from posting them, they will pray on the CHL holders that are fearful.


Honestly, all of the above really needs to be done. We really should focus more on clarification of our existing laws.


Thoughts?

Return to “2009 needs to be a clarification year”