TexasCHLforum.com

I like "Designated Defender" better.

Pawpaw wrote:I like "Designated Defender" better.

I'll take what ever PC term for it as long as it happens!

LSUTiger wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:I like "Designated Defender" better.

I'll take what ever PC term for it as long as it happens!

Not a PC term, but a slight twist to the "Designated Driver" concept that is so well received and understood.

locke_n_load wrote: Things also stated in this thread:

Any business that posts 30.06/30.07 is liable for damages in case of assault/theft/etc.

Tennessee's law goes into effect next week. Hopefully we can learn from it and put something in front of the legislature in 2017.

SB1736

Pawpaw wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:I like "Designated Defender" better.

I'll take what ever PC term for it as long as it happens!

Not a PC term, but a slight twist to the "Designated Driver" concept that is so well received and understood.

I vote for a law changing (one of) the definition(s) of intoxicated for LTC to 0.10 BAC, like Nevada...

There's a new statute in Tennessee that we would do well to emulate:

Any permit holder (a) who forbears from carrying because of a sign barring firearms and (B) who is injured has a cause of action against the poster of the sign, if:

1. The injured permit holder was authorized to carry a gun at the time of the incident,

2. The injured permit holder was prohibited from carrying a firearm due to the posting of a gun-free sign, and

3. The property owner was not required to be posted by state or federal law and posted by choice

http://bearingarms.com/jenn-j/2016/06/2 ... literally/

booze97 wrote:
Tennessee's law goes into effect next week. Hopefully we can learn from it and put something in front of the legislature in 2017.

While I think it's a positive move, I don't see how it can stick legally. The customer knows before entering that guns aren't allowed, and then makes a concious decision to enter that restaurant instead of going somewhere else. Nobody forced him to go in. Does the Tennessee law somehow negate this angle?

Language defining that 30.06/07 statutes do not apply to hotel guests or apartment renters and may not be enforced in these cases.

Make property owners responsible for the posting and upkeep of signage regardless of whether the property is rented. (Make city's responsible for the actions of their tenants regarding signage).

locke_n_load wrote:Or we could just pass a bill similar to last year's HB308, where an LTC holder can carry anywhere an officer can. Eliminates time and cost to develop and make a program for an "enhanced" LTC, and lessens restrictions for all current LTC holders.

Since the statistics show that LTC holders are more law abiding that LEO's, why restrict our ability to carry places that a LEO can carry?

locke_n_load wrote:What I did like in one of the other threads, is that properties would have to apply with DPS for 30.06/30.07 signs that have some sort of official seal on them and the address for which they apply. In this manner, private property applies/gets signs easily if they wish, but signs that are intended to go on public property, especially for temporary events, would not be granted.

Another winning idea! Yes, Mr. Business Owner, you do have the right to ban Texas "good guys" from your establishment, however to do so you must apply with the state in order to exercise that right to post the signs. And don't forget to include the paperwork that your "security instructor" gave you upon completion of your class and practical demonstration in business security.

What about requiring hotels, motels, and the like to post on their websites if they have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign?

KLB wrote:What about requiring hotels, motels, and the like to post on their websites if they have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign?

Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

mr1337 wrote:

KLB wrote:What about requiring hotels, motels, and the like to post on their websites if they have a 30.06 or 30.07 sign?

Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

I'd like to see every business that prohibits the most lawful of Texans to carry handguns be required to put it on their website. And register their signs with the state so it can be researched by LTC's prior to driving to the site.

mr1337 wrote:Already required but there's no enforcement of it.

OK, then a legislatively imposed remedy that the trespass charge will not stand. You ought to have notice when you book your room, not when you stagger into the motel after a long day on the road.

For gov't employees who direct illegal 30.06/07 postings on public buildings, make them PERSONALLY responsible for fines. If someone else (the taxpayers) picks up the bill, why do they care if it's illegal? Make them personally responsible for their decisions to use their authority to act contrary to the law. If they know they might be on the hook for the bill, they'd think twice about it.

If I break the law, I pay for it. Sauce for the goose.