What about reducing non-carry locations?

[Ace_Inthe_O]

Chas, I don’t know you but enjoy and respect you and your sight.


Hear is my point, perhaps it will be heard:

Many of the places restricted typically have large crowds; Church, amusement parks, sporting events ect… the rest are were emotions run high; polling, hospitals, courts, ect…

We CAN carry in churches, amusement parks, and hospitals so long as they're not posted with a 30.06.

[srothstein]

I didn't make my question clear enough in my post. 46.15(a)(5) exempts retired officers from the provisions in 46.02 and 46.03, but it's unclear to me if it also applies to 46.035 which applies to carry in bars, at sporting events, etc. Texas laws are written a little differently than what I'm used to, and I don't know if 46.035 is treated as a subsection of 46.03 and thus the exemption applies, or if it's treated as a separate section that the legislature did not intend to include in the exemption.

46.035 only applies to people who have a CHL. So, retired officers carrying under 46.15(a)(5) do not need to worry about it.

The real interesting part is that I think from the way Texas laws are written, out of state officers can also ignore 30.06 signs. The LEOSA specifically allows private property to be banned in accordance with state law, but 30.06 also only applies to CHL carriers, so 46.15(a)(5) would mean they can carry there too.

[Excaliber]

I didn't make my question clear enough in my post. 46.15(a)(5) exempts retired officers from the provisions in 46.02 and 46.03, but it's unclear to me if it also applies to 46.035 which applies to carry in bars, at sporting events, etc. Texas laws are written a little differently than what I'm used to, and I don't know if 46.035 is treated as a subsection of 46.03 and thus the exemption applies, or if it's treated as a separate section that the legislature did not intend to include in the exemption.

46.035 only applies to people who have a CHL. So, retired officers carrying under 46.15(a)(5) do not need to worry about it.

The real interesting part is that I think from the way Texas laws are written, out of state officers can also ignore 30.06 signs. The LEOSA specifically allows private property to be banned in accordance with state law, but 30.06 also only applies to CHL carriers, so 46.15(a)(5) would mean they can carry there too.

Thanks, Steve.

That's how I had been reading 46.15 and 46.035, but wasn't sure. I feel more comfortable now.

[Blinking Dog]

We CAN carry in churches, amusement parks, and hospitals so long as they're not posted with a 30.06.

As the original poster to this thread I'll weigh in and say that I'm aware of the rules, but I have yet to see a hospital that is not 30.06. I haven't seen a posted church. Amusement parks are a mix. If I were to divulge my complete opinion, I'd like to see the 30.06 sign go away altogether. There is so much confusion over the sign by CHL folks and establishments posting them (mostly discussion of whether the sign is legal or not). I don't think this helps the CHL concept. The simple answer is to pick a few spots that are absolutely banned for CHL, and that's it. Period, end of story.

As a heads-up for people, bars are going to be the biggest rallying point for the opposition...Many people were willing to risk re-election to pass CHL in 1995, but no one is going to risk re-election to let CHLs carry in bars. Again, this is just political reality.

Charles - I understand your opinion, but the bar issue is one where we the rules are double-dipping. We already have no intoxicated carry, so why do we need a no-51% carry? I'm willing to write letters, make calls...whatever. And if it is wrapped up in an omnibus CHL law seems like we ought to have a fighting chance.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles - I understand your opinion, but the bar issue is one where we the rules are double-dipping. We already have no intoxicated carry, so why do we need a no-51% carry? I'm willing to write letters, make calls...whatever. And if it is wrapped up in an omnibus CHL law seems like we ought to have a fighting chance.

I agree; as a general rule, I don't like the concept of prohibiting conduct solely because it might lead to other conduct that is harmful. My concern about guns in bars is purely a political one. It gives our opposition a very emotional focal point to attack and the media will be only too happy to assist. I can hear the news reports now; "people can now carry guns in bars. Yes, it's illegal for them to be intoxicated, but it's illegal to be intoxicated and drive, yet drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year."

Omnibus bills are very efficient, yet very dangerous. They open a lot more to amendment and they make it easier to tie up a bill in committee or in floor debate. Plus, in this context, it wouldn't help. The "bar" provision would simply be removed by amendment, either in committee or during floor debate.

Chas.

[Captain Matt]

I agree that someone with a CHL should be able to carry the same places as off duty police.

If alcohol and guns don't mix then the law should prohibit police from carrying in police bars. If sports and guns don't mix then off duty cops shouldn't be able to carry at school or professional sporting events, no matter if their kid is playing or if they're moonlighting. If schools and guns don't mix then a police officer shouldn't be able to carry when having a parent teacher meeting to discuss their kids.

But if it's acceptable for off duty police to carry in those places someone would have to be crazy or evil to object to a citizen with a CHL carrying in those places.

[Rhino1]

Excaliber wrote:
We CAN carry in churches, amusement parks, and hospitals so long as they're not posted with a 30.06.

What did I miss in my CHL class?

PC 46.035 Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder states we "commit an offense if...carries... :" then cites the 51% rule, sporting event, churches, amusement parks, hospitals, etc. There is no mention of ALSO having to post the 30.06 sign.

I understood that I could not carry (1) in any location defined in 46.035 (2) any location defined in 46.03 Places Weapons Prohibited (schools, polling places, secure area of airport, etc.) and (3) any other location where the 30.06 sign was posted.

I am not being argumentative, just trying to clarify the law. Most of us who are CHL holders are more committed to obeying the law than the general public. I also agree that most of these prohibited areas should be eliminated in future legislative sessions.

[srothstein]

rhino,

What you missed is a clarification to the law that was passed after the initial 46.035. There is a line further down that was added saying that some of the banned places are not really banned if they do not post according to 30.06.

[boomerang]

What did I miss in my CHL class?

46.035 (i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

[Rhino1]

Thanks for the prompt clarification. I don't recall this being discussed in my class last year, but there it is if I just read a little further. Seems odd that hospitals, amusement parks, churches, and governmental meeetings would require the 30.06 sign but not sporting events. Also seems like the 51% rule and correctional facility should fall under 46.03 Weapons Prohibited. But then who am I to question the wisdom of our state legislature and their clear and concise law writing skills?

[Commander]

We CAN carry in churches, amusement parks, and hospitals so long as they're not posted with a 30.06.

As the original poster to this thread I'll weigh in and say that I'm aware of the rules, but I have yet to see a hospital that is not 30.06.

Try Presbyterian Hospital of Greenville. It has signs that state something to the effect that "Texas Law Prohibits the carrying of firearms on these premises". Non-compliant and by my understanding of the law, carries no effect on CHL holders.

[Morgan]

Can't visit a friend in the hospital on the way home without disarming (haven't seen a hospital yet without a 30.06 sign).

Wouldn't matter, if it's 30.06 posted, you won't be able to carry... nobody is going to try to pass legislation right now to disallow privately held property the right to post 30.06.