TexasCHLforum.com

that1otherdude wrote:What they (HAS) are saying is that carrying a firearm in my car is a violation of city policy and by doing so I can have my airport badge suspended...

It's not clear to me whether state law gives HAS to power to do what they are saying, or prohibits them from doing it.

State agencies can set conditions for contractors, such as wearing uniforms or safety equipment. They can prohibit legal substances like alcohol on their premises. They can prohibit the use of cell phones. So there is precedent for this kind of restriction.

However, the legislative intent of the bill that created PC 30.06 was that government entities could not prohibit CHL holders from carrying except at certain limited locations.

If you think circulating a petition will make HAS management change their mind, I'll sign in.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

that1otherdude wrote:What they (HAS) are saying is that carrying a firearm in my car is a violation of city policy and by doing so I can have my airport badge suspended...

However, the legislative intent of the bill that created PC 30.06 was that government entities could not prohibit CHL holders from carrying except at certain limited locations.

If you think circulating a petition will make HAS management change their mind, I'll sign in.

- Jim

What would be the most productive way to get this ball rolling?

If you want to do an online petition, there are some online sites where you can create petitions without having to understand the software. I don't remember the addresses. You can find them through Google.

I doubt that kind of petition has much effect on government agencies, because online petitions are impossible to verify. One person could generate thousands of fake signatures.

I would like to know how the 30.06 signs were removed from City of Houston facilities. That happened several years ago, and I have never heard the full story.

- Jim

My personal opinion is that you don't need to do anything. The reason HAS isn't enforcing the policy at this time is because it can't. Government entities cannot restrict people based on their having a handgun carried under the authority of a CHL. HAS is a government entity. They'll never be able to enforce that policy until or unless the legislature removes that clause from 30.06.

If you cause waves by starting a petition about this non-issue, I predict they will find some reason to revoke your clearance. The City of Houston generally likes to have it way, and if you make it clear that they can't have their way, they'll find another way to get their way. I hope your friend is only parroting what he or she is being told, and is not speaking his own mind on this. I would be careful about what I said to that person in the future about anything gun- or CHL-related.

IMHO and IANAL, of course. I wish you all the best with whatever course you choose in this matter.

barres wrote: I hope your friend is only parroting what he or she is being told, and is not speaking his own mind on this. I would be careful about what I said to that person in the future about anything gun- or CHL-related.

that is a good point. I immediately dropped the point with the HAS rep even though this particular person is very pro-gun. she is parroting policy as you stated... I guess it just raised my ire that an unenforceable policy still exists...

Youre other point is well taken and the very reason that I have not gone further with the city but have only been talking on this thread.

What I really don't want is for the law of unintended consequences to be is for me to have to park somewhere else (MAJOR hassle) or for the policy to be changed in a worse manner (if there is one).