TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:

Wes wrote:

gsansing wrote:As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

Except open carry, per Charles, would not pass if it were tied to 30.06. I wouldn't want it to either. Why change 30.06 and give people a chance to water it down in the process. If our choice was open carried tied to 30.06 or no open carry, I'd choose no open carry.

Imagine a future where open carry passes and the 30.06 sign still only applies to CCW....

I think the fear is that businesses would see people open carrying, not like it, and then find out that hey, there's this 30.06 sign that will prevent people from carrying guns on their property. Well, no, the 30.06 sign would only prevent legal CCW and people will have been doing it for a long time before open carry. But right now CCW is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and the fear is that open carry will cause more 30.06 postings even if posting them doesn't do anything legally to stop open carry.

gsansing wrote:Spoke with both my Senator and Rep, yesterday. Both have a pro-gun and pro 2A reputation. I expressed what I would like to see for this upcoming session. Both were very pleased and eager to inform me that Open Carry was alive and well. Please bear in mind, I did not bring that particular subject up, and that they both offered this up to me. Also both reported to fielding numerous calls from their constituents voicing support for Open Carry and other pro-gun legislation.

Along with other items that I would like to see changed, both seemed very on board for an pro gun legislation. Mr. Cotton, my Rep and Senator seem to be on our side.

I hope this helps.

gsansing wrote:Sen. Craig Estes( District 30) and Rep. Scott Sanford(District 70).

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

android wrote:

RPBrown wrote:With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.

I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).

Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.

Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allows people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.

Chas.

I was going to say something, but Mr Cotton has said it much better than I can.

Thank you sir.

jmra wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

android wrote:

RPBrown wrote:With all of the lengthy discussions here about church carry and security teams, I am surprised to see the number for that so low.

I don't even go to church and I picked that one. I have read about the issue and I think it's a burdensome restriction.

I didn't pick that one because I don't see what makes churches special in this regard. I'd either make the exception for all non-profits in general, or not for anybody (not sure which).

Churches do have a unique need for this legislation that no other non-profit experiences. (The bill also applies to schools.) No other non-profit organization tends to have a large number of people gathered in one location on a regular basis, thus making the planning and attack by a mass murdered easier. Churches are targeted specifically because they are places of worship.

Very few churches post 30.06 signs and many tens of thousands of CHLs carry handguns in church every Sunday, as well as other days. Texas law allow people to defend themselves and others and there is no doubt that many CHLs will respond to a violent attack in their churches. Being able to form a volunteer security team and educate/coordinate with fellow armed church members will increase overall safety.

Chas.

I voted for this one, but I do have one concern. That would be the seeking out of CHLers for the security team or, even worse, a church requiring all security team members to have a CHL and be armed. That could easily get out of hand and result in a bad situation. I would hate to know someone got their CHL just so they could "play cop" at church.

IMHO, having worked with E&E teams for years, this concern simply doesn't have much validity. Any reputable church organization is going to vet their team members stringently. In order to be effective these team members have to be people who interact well with both members of the church and guests. We aren't talking about loners who don't fit in.
Simply put, there is not a member of my E&E team who couldn't be a cop if that was their calling in life. If they wanted to "play cop" they would do exactly that and get payed for it.
Remember, the only reason this restriction was applied to churches in the first place was the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.

ETA: who would you prefer "patrolling" the halls of the church your family attends, a cop who just rolled up from pulling an all night shift or a well rested, well vetted, well trained professional business man who knows the members of your church and has a vested interest in protecting those members? I think the answer is simple. Now we just need to stop neutering that individual.

6. Remove the fingerprint requirement for new and renewed CHLs;

mr1337 wrote:

6. Remove the fingerprint requirement for new and renewed CHLs;

Does anyone know if that would affect any reciprocity agreements?

BenGoodLuck wrote:# 2 states: "Repeal of all off-limits areas for Texas CHLs (excluding federal laws) [HB3218 in 2013]." I'm having a hard time understanding how people are ok repealing all off-limits areas but not repealing 30.06 entirely. I know we've been through this before, but there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in that we're telling a hospital that it doesn't have a right to ban CHLs on its premises, but we can't do the same to all private property owners.

Why not have an option to remove the criminal penalties for violation of 30.06?