SB342: OCT/NAGR SeSate Bill: BAD BILL.

[The Annoyed Man]

Historically the OC community wants 30.06 to apply to OC because they know it will be banned on a massive scale otherwise. They do not understand that will not stop businesses from doing so. The CHL community want's to keep 30.06 free of OC so that it is not more widely deployed.

Nutshell^^^^

I would further add that some of them know perfectly well that businesses will react that way, and they are good with that because they don't want a CHL to have any privileges they don't have. It's very much of the spoiled child's reaction of "if I can't have it, then you can't either". Why? Because for a lot of these people, their lack of emotional maturity in the past has gotten them into the kind of trouble where CHL is no longer legally available to them.

[poppo]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

I have not read the bill yet, but that would be my take on it given what the OPer said. If this was the case, I'm not sure what would make it bad.

[RogueUSMC]

Historically the OC community wants 30.06 to apply to OC because they know it will be banned on a massive scale otherwise. They do not understand that will not stop businesses from doing so. The CHL community want's to keep 30.06 free of OC so that it is not more widely deployed.

Nutshell^^^^

I would further add that some of them know perfectly well that businesses will react that way, and they are good with that because they don't want a CHL to have any privileges they don't have. It's very much of the spoiled child's reaction of "if I can't have it, then you can't either". Why? Because for a lot of these people, their lack of emotional maturity in the past has gotten them into the kind of trouble where CHL is no longer legally available to them.

A felon can have his rights reinstated...it just costs money and work. Our society doesn't like it when the process wherein they get something they want requires money...or work...or any combination of the two.

Their whole lives, they have learned that is they kick and scream, folks usually give them what they want to shut them up. We are left with the Kory Watkins of the world...

[G.A. Heath]

I'm guessing that the explanation might be that since oral communication would be required (the bill says either oral and written notification or oral notification alone), then it would be unlikely that a property owner would give oral notification to everyone who enters that carry is prohibited. The property owner would likely only tell people who were OCing, because that would be a rather small number of people. CCW-ers wouldn't likely be orally notified and then could still legally carry.

I have not read the bill yet, but that would be my take on it given what the OPer said. If this was the case, I'm not sure what would make it bad.

The bill changes 30.06, and it does so in a way that is likely to get the bill killed OR altered in a way that could get 30.06 gutted. Essentially if they had left 30.06 alone the bill would have been an improvement over HB195. After the confrontation in Rep Pancho Nevarez's office I feel that a bill with an Oral notification requirement has as much of a chance of passing as deflate gate has of simply going away.