TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:48 am

Russell wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:44 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:18 am

rtschl wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:30 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:15 am 1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.

Chas.

Removing off limits areas for LTC's needs to be an all out effort by all 2A groups! The Ft.Worth Paper online has had multiple articles on Constitutional Carry being the next big gun law in Texas. While I am for it, it needs to take a back seat this next year to removing off limit areas. Let's spend our political capital wisely.

The bill I have written 1) creates unlicensed-carry; 2) moves all of TPC §46.035 to §46.03; and 3) exempts LTC's from §46.03. The benefit of this approach is that it creates so-called constitutional carry while preserving a big incentive to get an LTC. The Legislature does not like unlicensed-carry, but providing an incentive to get an LTC along with its education/training will help make it more palatable.

I know, I know. The more hardcore open-carry/unlicensed-carry folks are going to cry foul because they would not be able to carry where LTCs would be able to carry. Sorry, sometimes you have to wake up and realize we live in the real world, not Utopia.

Chas.

I sincerely hope we are able to get this moving *without* the help of TSRA. They really did us wrong last session.

Russell, what am I missing about TSRA? To be honest, I haven’t paid that much attention to them ever since I let my membership lapse, so I’m not current on what they did or didn’t do.

TSRA, in my opinion, basically ignored HB560 last session in favor of almost *everything* ... *else*.

I don't understand it, I don't know why so much political capital and goodwill was wasted on constitutional carry when LTCers are deserving of better rules that don't discriminate against us, but that was what I saw happened. Constitutional carry went no where, and we lost the ability to get some terrible laws changed to favor those that have paid for the class and done the testing.

If you want a good sense of how much it was ignored, just go take a look at their 2017 session page on their website. Do a search for HB560 - notice anything? https://www.tsrapac.com/billfilingupdates/

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:18 am

rtschl wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:30 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:15 am 1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.

Chas.

Removing off limits areas for LTC's needs to be an all out effort by all 2A groups! The Ft.Worth Paper online has had multiple articles on Constitutional Carry being the next big gun law in Texas. While I am for it, it needs to take a back seat this next year to removing off limit areas. Let's spend our political capital wisely.

The bill I have written 1) creates unlicensed-carry; 2) moves all of TPC §46.035 to §46.03; and 3) exempts LTC's from §46.03. The benefit of this approach is that it creates so-called constitutional carry while preserving a big incentive to get an LTC. The Legislature does not like unlicensed-carry, but providing an incentive to get an LTC along with its education/training will help make it more palatable.

I know, I know. The more hardcore open-carry/unlicensed-carry folks are going to cry foul because they would not be able to carry where LTCs would be able to carry. Sorry, sometimes you have to wake up and realize we live in the real world, not Utopia.

Chas.

I sincerely hope we are able to get this moving *without* the help of TSRA. They really did us wrong last session.

flechero wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:04 am

Russell wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am > In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that . I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

I also strongly believe in private property rights... but as an employee, you have invited them (bribed actually, with cash) onto your business property. Do you provide your employees armed security? A secure path between desk and parking area? Do you carry? Why would you hire someone (after a probationary period) that you can't trust?

It's already illegal to use said firearm on your property except in a case of self defense. It's like banning unopened containers in a motor vehicle. Because, well- you know... they could spontaneously open and pour themselves down your throat!

Property rights arguments for businesses are weakened in my opinion since they generally serve or sell to the public, in some capacity... in those cases, they should be held to the same restrictions as the general public.

While I agree with the ultimate end goal, I'll continue playing devil's advocate because I dislike government intervention in most situations


> but as an employee (I assume you mean employer actually), you have invited them (bribed actually, with cash) onto your business property.

I did not bribe. Employment is a contractually guaranteed/enforced relationship with agreed-upon benefits for both parties. The employee signed on and agreed to the terms and conditions of the relationship with the knowledge that guaranteed armed security is not outlined as provided in the contract.


> Why would you hire someone (after a probationary period) that you can't trust?

Just because I can trust my employee to stock my shelves with product does not mean I can trust them to securely carry a firearm without, for example, leaving it in the bathroom (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... y-restroom) or accidentally dropping it while break dancing during their lunch period (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 82096.html).

It's my business decision as the employer for how I want my employees to dress or behave while on the job. It is not the government's place to dictate what I do and do not trust them with.


> It's already illegal to use said firearm on your property except in a case of self defense.

Sure, but doesn't mean I as an employer shouldn't have the rights to define the employer/employee relationship as I see fit.


> Property rights arguments for businesses are weakened in my opinion since they generally serve or sell to the public, in some capacity... in those cases, they should be held to the same restrictions as the general public.

Agreed, and a business owner can currently restrict individual members of the public from carrying into the business without having to post signage. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that with their employees?

PriestTheRunner wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:40 am

Russell wrote: ↑Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am > In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that I also strongly believe in private property rights. I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

What about the insurance and protection ideas I posted above?

Ban the increase of insurance premiums due to the allowing or not-allowing of LTC's on the premises. Having 30.06 or 30.07 up (or not) should have no affect on premiums. Legislate that insurance may not require 30.06 or 30.07 postage.

Has this actually been an issue, and do you have any sources? I personally don't like legislating against things that aren't actually problems.

Require that employers who do not post 30.06 and 30.07 publicly may not prohibit 30.06 and 30.07 for employees (IE, if you don't exclude the public LTC's, you may not exclude employee LTCs).

Again, private property rights. If I were an employer, I should be able to control what my employees do regardless of what I allow my customers to do. If you don't like it, you're welcome to cover some of my employee's salary!

Create blanket protections for employers if a person uses a firearm in defense of self or others, and such an action was not within the employee's scope of work or job duties, then the employer is exempt and protected from litigation. IE- a person's defense of themselves cannot open the business to a lawsuit.

I agree with this.

Clarify brandishing and specify 'legal brandishing' against threats of violence

This is already in the statutes (see 9.04). I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that I also strongly believe in private property rights. I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.