2017 Legislative Priorities

This is the forum for topics directly related to desired changes in the upcoming legislative session.

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 17228
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#181

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:33 pm

Ruark wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: We've known about this since last session. In fact, I've been letting people know for a good while. The TAB is not in full support and it isn't a major sore spot with the business community. Andrea Bauer wants everyone to believe this, but it's not the case.
I certainly hope you're right. I've heard otherwise, but as you know, sometimes it's hard to sort it all out. This TAB memo excerpt from 2015 still doesn't look too gun-friendly, especially per the 2nd paragraph:
tabsign.JPG
A letter is not what we consider "full support." Sometimes it 's merely going through the motions. More importantly, the business community has not pressured anyone to amend 30.06. Again, this could change prior to or during the 2017 legislative session, so gun owners need to be ready to respond to all calls-to-action on this issue.

Chas.
Image


ralewis
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:37 pm

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#182

Post by ralewis » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:22 am

ScottDLS wrote:
If a blue state like Pennsylvania can have a Uniform Firearms Act with virtually no restrictions on carrying, and no criminal "signs", and permitless open carry...and deep blue Vermont was original Constitutional carry state, we can get there...I guess it will just be step by step. :txflag:
I completely concur.. It amazes me how a 'blue (hopefully RED this time)' state like PA might be the best gun law state in the country. I spend about 1.5 months a year in PA(NE PA-- Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area), and guns are a complete and total non-issue. I've never seen a gunbuster sign, or any significant news discussion (other than the news about TX open carry and how it's been legal in PA and a non-issue for the most part). I've carried at sporting events, in bars, and in hospitals. Complete non-issue there. I see no reason why TX can't be the same.

I"ll pass on what I consider an anecdote indicating (to me) the acceptance of guns in PA.... I also have a PA LTC because everywhere I go is within 1000 feet of a school -- and one interpretation of the gun free school zone law was you had to have a license from the state the school was in. When I got my PA LTC, I went to the Luzerne County Court House, presented my TX CHL/$21, the Deputy Sheriff looked at the map on his wall and printed me a PA LTC.


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#183

Post by mr1337 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:39 am

ralewis wrote:I completely concur.. It amazes me how a 'blue (hopefully RED this time)' state like PA might be the best gun law state in the country.
I would imagine that PA doesn't have to contend with masses of CA transplants.
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#184

Post by mojo84 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:36 am

Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3603
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#185

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 11:51 am

Ruark wrote:
KLB wrote:Our comments are, insofar as I have noticed them, all about expanding our rights. That's a good thing to think about and to be prepared to address. But what if the anti-gunners have an agenda of their own? Has anyone given any thought to what they might try to roll back and how we might counter that? I was speaking to a friend who predicted this will be a rollback session for gun rights.
I was told by a senior senate staff member that the antis (e.g. the Moms) were going to make a real hard push to replace the 06/07 signs with downloadable gunbuster signs. They have the full support of the Texas Association of Businesses, which represents over 4,000 Texas businesses. The requirement to plaster the front of your business with the big, ugly current signage is reportedly a major sore spot in the business community. Just a heads-up.
There is no requirement for any business to post any signs related to guns other than required TABC blue / red signs.

If a business owner wants to restrict the civil right of their customers to keep and bear arms, then there is a legal mechanism for them to do that. And that legal mechanism includes the use of signage as one of several options. I don't think that is too onerous of a requirement before you are allowed to restrict the civil rights of others.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#186

Post by ScottDLS » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:37 pm

mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.
Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"? :???:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

TexasTornado
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:23 pm
Contact:

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#187

Post by TexasTornado » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:56 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Ruark wrote:
KLB wrote:Our comments are, insofar as I have noticed them, all about expanding our rights. That's a good thing to think about and to be prepared to address. But what if the anti-gunners have an agenda of their own? Has anyone given any thought to what they might try to roll back and how we might counter that? I was speaking to a friend who predicted this will be a rollback session for gun rights.
I was told by a senior senate staff member that the antis (e.g. the Moms) were going to make a real hard push to replace the 06/07 signs with downloadable gunbuster signs. They have the full support of the Texas Association of Businesses, which represents over 4,000 Texas businesses. The requirement to plaster the front of your business with the big, ugly current signage is reportedly a major sore spot in the business community. Just a heads-up.
There is no requirement for any business to post any signs related to guns other than required TABC blue / red signs.

If a business owner wants to restrict the civil right of their customers to keep and bear arms, then there is a legal mechanism for them to do that. And that legal mechanism includes the use of signage as one of several options. I don't think that is too onerous of a requirement before you are allowed to restrict the civil rights of others.
:iagree: the could hand out business cards with the info or have their greeters tell everyone at the door. Signage isn't incumbent upon them.
Image
"I can see it's dangerous for you, but if the government trusts me, maybe you could."

NRA Lifetime Member

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#188

Post by mojo84 » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:04 pm

ScottDLS wrote:
mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.
Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"? :???:

You may want to look up the word balance. Very few things are without some restrictions. That goes for where we can carry and what a property owner can do with their property.

Your analogy using large publicly traded companies is ridiculous and immature. You can research what day to day control and decision making authority shareholders have,

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#189

Post by ScottDLS » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:40 am

mojo84 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.
Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"? :???:

You may want to look up the word balance. Very few things are without some restrictions. That goes for where we can carry and what a property owner can do with their property.

Your analogy using large publicly traded companies is ridiculous and immature. You can research what day to day control and decision making authority shareholders have,
No, Texas does not have a significantly greater respect for property owners than many states, especially business property owners. It earned is reputation as a debtor friendly state making it easy to stiff creditors, and for an out of control trial bar that screwed owners out of their property by ignoring 100s of years of common law (see Pennzoil Texaco). Only as Republicans began to gain control in the legislature in the 90's did it start changing. There's nothing "balanced" about allowing off duty LEO exemption from (weapon) trespass law on all private property including private homes not open to the public. And forcing employers to allow unlicensed firearms "carry" in their parking lots without criminal or civil recourse...how is that different than not allowing "signs" to carry criminal penalty in a publicly open building.

For diffuse ownership entities (corps, LLC, partnerships) with publicly open stores....How is it juvenile to ask what the owners actual wishes are, when speaking of criminal trespass? The shareholders are the owners, not the management and yet the management can invoke criminal trespass regardless of the "wishes" of the owners. Also, collectively, we can be sure that if you polled a majority of "owners" of companies that DO allow carry, they would probably be against it...so that's where you say it's a publicly open business...and deal with it...like 25 odd other states already do.

I am pointing out the way people invoke our great Texan respect for "private property" rights on commercial businesses, as if they were sole proprietorships where the "wishes" of the owner knowable and worthy of respect, which in the case of hidden conduct (carry) that affects no one, they are not.

Texas is probably around 10 out of 50 in respecting 2nd amendment rights, which is very good and getting better, but there are blue states like Vermont and "purple" like Pennsylvania that are ahead of us. That's always somewhat surprised me since I moved here 25 years ago.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 8651
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#190

Post by mojo84 » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:09 am

ScottDLS wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:
mojo84 wrote:Texas holds private property rights in high regard. Other states may not be as concerned about protecting private property rights and balancing them with people's right to bear arms.
Or so the legislature keeps telling us...as they pass MPA, parking lot law, LEO exemption from 30.05 for weapons, etc. all of which I support, but seem to belie their concern for BUSINESS property owner's rights. Then they suddenly rediscover their support for "big bidness" property owners when the crony capitalists come callin' with their checkbooks. How am I supposed to know the "wishes" of the owners of a publicly held corporation? Or a big private equity fund? Do they poll all the shareholders? Or does the management just decide for us, regardless of our wishes as "owners"? :???:

You may want to look up the word balance. Very few things are without some restrictions. That goes for where we can carry and what a property owner can do with their property.

Your analogy using large publicly traded companies is ridiculous and immature. You can research what day to day control and decision making authority shareholders have,
No, Texas does not have a significantly greater respect for property owners than many states, especially business property owners. It earned is reputation as a debtor friendly state making it easy to stiff creditors, and for an out of control trial bar that screwed owners out of their property by ignoring 100s of years of common law (see Pennzoil Texaco). Only as Republicans began to gain control in the legislature in the 90's did it start changing. There's nothing "balanced" about allowing off duty LEO exemption from (weapon) trespass law on all private property including private homes not open to the public. And forcing employers to allow unlicensed firearms "carry" in their parking lots without criminal or civil recourse...how is that different than not allowing "signs" to carry criminal penalty in a publicly open building.

For diffuse ownership entities (corps, LLC, partnerships) with publicly open stores....How is it juvenile to ask what the owners actual wishes are, when speaking of criminal trespass? The shareholders are the owners, not the management and yet the management can invoke criminal trespass regardless of the "wishes" of the owners. Also, collectively, we can be sure that if you polled a majority of "owners" of companies that DO allow carry, they would probably be against it...so that's where you say it's a publicly open business...and deal with it...like 25 odd other states already do.

I am pointing out the way people invoke our great Texan respect for "private property" rights on commercial businesses, as if they were sole proprietorships where the "wishes" of the owner knowable and worthy of respect, which in the case of hidden conduct (carry) that affects no one, they are not.

Texas is probably around 10 out of 50 in respecting 2nd amendment rights, which is very good and getting better, but there are blue states like Vermont and "purple" like Pennsylvania that are ahead of us. That's always somewhat surprised me since I moved here 25 years ago.

You seem to be struggling with understanding the roles of shareholders when it comes to day to day management and operations of a publicly traded company. It's the job of the executives to run the day to day operations with oversight and direction of the board of directors. You continuing to convolude the roles diminishes your credibility in this issue.

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 4438
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#191

Post by ScottDLS » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:30 am

You're missing my point. I know very well how corporate entities are organized and managed. I am pointing out that complying with management directives of corporate entities has nothing to do with respecting owners' wishes on property that they own.

When people suggest that Texas has great respect for owners' property rights, they ignore LEGAL evidence to the contrary in the MPA, Parking Lot Law, and LEO exemptions, not to mention wacky liability law.

Then people make the logical fallacy of applying the moral idea of "owners" rights to control activity on private property to legal entities where there is no single or identifiable "owner" point of view. That, and I dispute the moral argument that even a sole owner has the right to use the State to enforce arbitrary rules on private conduct on property voluntarily opened to the public. Even in Texas, trespass law has not (yet) been held to apply to criminally enforcing general rules and standards, except in the case of the (arguably incorrect) AG opinion of 21 years ago, which was mooted by 30.06 19 years ago.

The excuse is used by legislators that don't wish to cross the powerful retail, restaurant, and private security lobbies...even if they generally support our views on gun rights. I understand, but refuse to stand by while they claim the moral high ground of "property rights"... :roll:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


ralewis
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:37 pm

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#192

Post by ralewis » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:03 pm

mr1337 wrote:
ralewis wrote:I completely concur.. It amazes me how a 'blue (hopefully RED this time)' state like PA might be the best gun law state in the country.
I would imagine that PA doesn't have to contend with masses of CA transplants.
That would be true... Would you move from anywhere warm to PA? I grew up there and I never go back between Nov and April...

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 7449
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#193

Post by RoyGBiv » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:19 am

ScottDLS wrote:.....I dispute the moral argument that even a sole owner has the right to use the State to enforce arbitrary rules on private conduct on property voluntarily opened to the public. .......
:iagree:

ADA, Employment laws, Fire Code, Health & safety code, building code, noise ordinances, restrictions on hours of operation...... ad infinitum.... There are myriad infringements on the notion of "private property rights" when that property is a business. Why is it that a Constitutionally protected, Natural Right is not on the list of things a business owner must also honor?

At minimum, shouldn't it be incumbent upon the "private owner" who prohibits the means of lawful self defense to also bear the burden of protecting those on his/her property thereby rendered defenseless as well as the liability for failing to do so adequately?
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek


SHogun62
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:44 am

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#194

Post by SHogun62 » Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:34 am

I think all of this .06/.07 mess can be solved by simply re-defining what the word "private property" means.

My home is private property because it is not open to the public. If you run a business that is open to the public at large (retail, food), then by the very nature of being open, you aren't "private".

See, three lines of text just eliminated the sea of gray when it comes to "Who can post what sign where and is it legal to do so?"

Is that what the law as it's written says, nope. Is that what it should say, in my opinion.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 18
Posts: 17228
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 2017 Legislative Priorities

#195

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:34 pm

All this talk about private property, 30.06/30.07 signs, businesses, etc. is an entertaining academic discussion. That's all it is. There is absolutely no support in Austin for denying businesses the ability to prohibit guns on their property. I know, I tried to promote that concept and it never got off the ground. Texas Assoc. of Business (TAB) would fight it like a tiger, as wood private property rights supporters.

I'm not saying anyone should refrain from discussing the issue, but don't think there's a chance of it passing.

Chas.
Image

Locked

Return to “2017 Legislative Wish List”