2009 needs to be a clarification year

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 7552
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: Richmond, Texas

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#16

Post by anygunanywhere »

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

I would be very excited :woohoo
We, the members of this forum would like to see Russell excited.

Anygunanywhere
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." Mike Vanderboegh

aardwolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas
Contact:

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#17

Post by aardwolf »

anygunanywhere wrote:Just allow anyone with a CHL to carry anywhere LEO can carry.

Gov. Perry has stated his support for this idea.
FTW!
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.
User avatar

Purplehood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4638
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#18

Post by Purplehood »

Russell wrote: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. :)
I have no interest/intent to do an LEO's job. If I did, I would make every effort to become one.
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07

aardwolf
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas
Contact:

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#19

Post by aardwolf »

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.
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.
User avatar

sbb
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 6:17 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#20

Post by sbb »

Thanks for your work on this issue, Charles. Do you think that this proposed legislation has a hope of being brought to the floor. If it makes it to the floor what do you believe the odds are on passage?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” Thomas Paine
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17754
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#21

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

sbb wrote:Thanks for your work on this issue, Charles. Do you think that this proposed ligislation has a hope of being brought to the floor. If it makes it to the floor what do you believe the odds are on passage?
Prior to Nov. 4th -- yes. Now it's uncertain since we still don't know who will control the Texas House and who will be Speaker. The Speaker of the House decides committee chairmanships as well as who will serve on what committees. He also assigns bills to specific committees.

We woke up to a new political world on Nov. 5th folks. What that world will look like and what it holds for us won't be known for a while. That's why it is critical that everyone who isn't an NRA member click on the link in the header and join. Also join TSRA (that link will be there soon). After joining both of those organizations, please consider joining the new Texas CHL Forum, Inc.

I'm going to write an article for the http://www.TexasCHLblog.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; with a copy here talking about the need to rapidly and dramatically increase the membership of all three of those organizations, but I appreciate the opportunity to throw in a plug now. :biggrinjester:

Chas.

Chas.

3dfxMM
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#22

Post by 3dfxMM »

The law is very clear regarding what constitutes a legal 30.06 sign. What about it do you see as a gray area?
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17754
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 2009 needs to be a clarification year

#23

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Russell wrote: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?
In Texas, bills are drafted as narrowly as possible to cover the subject matter. This is because amendments that are not germane to the bill cannot be tacked on, as is the case in the U.S. Congress. Adding anything to the bill that relates to TPC §30.06 is not only unnecessary to put CHLs on the same footing as LEOs, it would greatly expand the possibility of anti-gun amendments being added to the bill. This could either kill the bill, or result in us accepting adverse consequences to get the expanded authority. The risk is simply too high.

I have to agree that there is no ambiguity in TPC §30.06; the requirements are specific as to the language and physical requirements for a compliant sign. However, let's say a bill is introduced to amend TPC §30.06 to add the language you suggest. If it passed, then everything is fine and it is even more clear that a non-compliant sign is unenforceable. However, if it doesn't pass, either because people think it isn't necessary, or because tighter requirements aren't wanted by the new majority in Austin, then the failure of the bill would imply that the existing statute (TPC §30.06) does not require strict compliance with physical or language requirements. This is because there is a presumption in law that the legislature never passes an unnecessary bill and that the legislature never includes superfluous language in a bill. In other words, failing to get the bill passed would create the precise situation we don't want.

Chas.
Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”