TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:...
Or maybe someone needs to tell me I am wrong on this, and tell me I am making a mountain out of a molehill...

Yes I think this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Ok, fair enough...You bring up some great points, they are well received...But since I can only base my analysis on your recent experience, I guess I am only digging the hole a little deeper I suppose...

I will soon find out about how infringing this is when I get there...

But, based upon what they have in play now, I wonder what a lawsuit would do, if I (and any others) claim that this "system" is in violation of the law...

See, it's really simple...If you or I can only gain access to the capitol by going through a "special line" in plain view of the rest of the public, and that line is labeled "CHL"...Then it is rather obvious that our ability to remain anonymous, or concealed is technically violated for no other reason than to "verify" the validity of our CHL license??? Come on, we have not even given probably cause to be contacted by law enforcement, other than the fact that we WILL be found out if we pass through the metal detectors...Therefore we have been given this special line, in public view, to go through just so we can be "verified"???

Personally, you ELB, and the other participants who are licensed to carry per the laws of this state, I would not want you guys and gals to have to be subjected to this intrusive, revealing and illegal screening...That was not the purpose of this law passed that was passed 15 years ago...And "factions" within our government were surely not given leave to arbitrarily change something to suit the needs of a few in this state without due process!!!

Mike1951 wrote:I agree completely with Stevie.

This is no less objectionable than entering through a metal detector and being red badged to enter City of Houston buildings.

It's also too similar to what it was taking to enter the State Fair.

Instead of quiet acceptance there should be a huge outcry. Where is it?

I certainly won't be visiting the Capitol.

As I've stated in prior posts: By making CHL's go through a line marked with a sign "CHL"S ENTER HERE",
they might as well put hunter orange pirate hats on all of us. I still think the money spent on metal detectors,
DPS staffing etc etc is a total waste of taxpayers money. I'm not pleased with the Preservation Committee's
decision to install this security nightmare. Gov Perry was the lone dissenting voice, thank you Sir.

To the posters who don't like what the OP reported
about his entry experience to the Capitol:

Chill my friends.

It sounds like the experience is minimally intrusive.
So what if somone sees you go through the "Staff and CHL"
line? The only people who may hear the CHL questions posed
to you by the troopers are very close to you.

Are these people armed BG's who are going to get the drop on
you and kill you in order to steal your weapon? I think not.

IMHO, I find the paranoia regarding the above process to be
out of sync with any plausible bad outcomes.

It took you more time to type an entry on this thread than the
troopers may take to ask you a question or 2 and fumble some
data into their laptop.

SIA

Regarding out-of-state concealed carry licensees, all the media are making a point of saying "Texas" CHL holders. It appears that out-of-state licensees may not carry. If so, does anyone know how they are to be handled. We certainly want to do our best to recognize out-of-state people, so we are treated well in their states. Maybe this goes to the card reading capability??

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:To the posters who don't like what the OP reported
about his entry experience to the Capitol:

Chill my friends.

It sounds like the experience is minimally intrusive.
So what if somone sees you go through the "Staff and CHL"
line? The only people who may hear the CHL questions posed
to you by the troopers are very close to you.

I understand and respect your observation here...But it's the principality [snicker], of the situation that bothers me...

I still believe the system they have implemented is violating the law...

People have filed lawsuits on issues of less importance, and much less credible, legal grounds than what is being questioned here...

I feel pretty comfortable being a "stick in the mud" on this issue, and if I have offended anyone because of my persistence, I apologize, I just have a pretty good gut feeling that this (based upon the testimony of a participant on this website), that this is wrong from here to Christmas, and that I truely believe this solution needs to be scrutinized...

I know Charles has explained this, and was privy to its discussion and implementation, and if he is comfortable with it, I can respect that, but I have to seriously question why this was done (for whatever reason"s") without a public review, or apparent "future" review, and testimony from the public about this...

I'm sorry, but this just sticks in my craw the wrong way...And I feel compelled to be very public with my concerns about it...

Bottom line is we have got bigger and better things we need to be on top of legislatively, than get bogged down with something that should not be (and made) a problem in the first place...

And yes, I believe (and we had better expect) we are going to have to seriously address the issue...I would rather not, but then again we did not get our day in court (so to speak)...

Again, this is just my opinion...

stevie_d_64 wrote:
I still believe the system they have implemented is violating the law...

I'd be curius to know which law you think they are violating? I'm not aware of one that would seem to apply in this situation.

A lot of people have been asking for open carry in Texas. . . looks like they're getting their wish (at least for the capitol).

You do still have to conceal your gun physically. . . CHL badges, CHL sashes, and "I'm carrying a concealed firearm" T-shirts should be sold in the gift shop or handed out free to those in line.

BrianSW99 wrote:[quote="stevie_d_64"
I still believe the system they have implemented is violating the law...

I'd be curius to know which law you think they are violating? I'm not aware of one that would seem to apply in this situation.[/quote]

Per the CHL law, I understand, our identities (the fact that we carry handguns under the provision of that law) is supposed to be held in confidence, per that law...

If a procedure forces us to reveal that "secret" identity, then that procedure would be illegal, wouldn't it??? That violates the law, doesn't it???

I just posted an article (in the "Politics" section of this forum) by the editorial department of the Austin American Statesman that illustrates that this whole issue was not generated by a legislative process, and that, in and of itself, violates the state law...

So, if you ask me, I believe this system needs to be removed immediately, or, in my opinion a lawsuit should be filed to make that happen at the very least...

Either way, a legislative solution to keep these types of "knee-jerk" reactions by unelected bodies from being implemented should be sufficient to keep me off the warpath...Not that its about me...

I would like to clarify that most of us, including me, are satisfied with where we are in regards to the CHL law, and its protections afforded to those licensed to carry under those provisions...

I cannot and will not accept arbitrary changes by entities who are not accountable to the voters of this state (especially on issues like this!!!)...If the legislative branch decides to repeal this law, and the governor signs it or allows it to become law, then that is a battle we'll have to fight at that time...But this is something that was completely avoidable, yet it wasn't nipped in the bud when it should have been...

The only reason I am being so public about my opposition to this, is that I have not seen anything, publically, or sent to me in private that this is being addressed...

I am being a pest about this because I want to illicite a response, regardless if I am correct or not in doing so...I do not believe I am crying wolf, or foul on these points, so I will continue to chime in till I see or hear something which answers what I believe are valid concerns...

Instead of me digging up chapter and verse of the law, why don't I just put you in a situation and you tell me if you believe, or not, that this is a violation of the law...

You are a delegate to the GOP convention up in Dallas this weekend...

You are in a room full of thousands of other delegates waiting to breakup and go to your district caucuses, or committee meetings for testimony, or just to attend...

Before you can access those processes, those who are unarmed, can go through "this" line to be screened (metal detectors), and just down the way, those of us who carry under the provisions of the Texas CHL law MUST be screened and verified in this "other" line as noted by signage and other publically announced instruction(s)...You are required, through no violation of any other law to present your CHL credential to lawful authority for verification (scrutiny) before you may proceed...You will be subsequently badged, so that a quick visual scan of you and your convention credentials can be seen by anyone, and know that you have been "cleared" specially by convention "contracted" security...

Now...Does that appear to be wrong, or against the law, or what???

Heck, lemme go search the statute, I'll try to grab something I believe is relevant here...No prob...

I can follow and wholeheartedly agree with stevie. It bothered me and I knew I'd heard of some law that protects CHL privacy.

With a search I found HB991 of the 80th Legislature (2007)

This doesn't directly address his issue, but the intent is that a CHLer shouldn't be exposed to another individual by a law enforcement or other government agency. The removed text is in red, added text is in blue, I hope I got it right but it can be found here.

SECTION 1. Section 411.192, Government Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. (a) The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. [The department shall, on written request and payment of a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying, disclose to any other individual whether a named individual or any individual whose full name is listed on a specified written list is licensed under this subchapter.] Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, and zip code. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552.
(b) An [, except that the] applicant or license holder may be furnished a copy of disclosable records regarding the applicant or license holder on request and the payment of a reasonable fee.
(c) The department shall notify a license holder of any request that is made for information relating to the license holder under this section and provide the name of the [person or] agency making the request.
(d) This section does not prohibit the department from making public and distributing to the public at no cost lists of individuals who are certified as qualified handgun instructors by the department.

stevie_d_64 wrote:If a procedure forces us to reveal that "secret" identity, then that procedure would be illegal, wouldn't it??? That violates the law, doesn't it???

411.205 requires exactly that, although the penalty was removed.

That law is specifically relating to open records requests and says that dps can't disclose the license status of an individual to someone making a request under the freedom of information act. It prevents, for example, your employer from contacting dps without your knowledge or consent to find out if you have a chl.

That law doesn't address the separate screening line at the Capitol or the private security scenario above because no information is being obtained by an open records request. That's the same law that a lot of folks cited to say that what the State Fair was doing was illegal but I just don't see it. We may not like it, but I don't think it's illegal.

Fine. Eliminate the CHL line. Run everyone through the metal detectors. There is no legal problem with that at all. And when you ring the metal detector, privacy goes right out the window. You now have given the officers a reason to suspect you have a weapon, and of course they are right. They can sort out the issue right then and there -- in fact, they have an obligation to sort it out -- and you won't have any more expectation of privacy or confidentiality than you would any where else that you came to the attention of the police.

There is nothihg illegal about the CHL line -- they can easily force everyone through the metal detectors and get the same result, only a LOT slower and more inconvenient for us CHL'ers. Comprehend this: they put the CHL line in as a favor to CHLs; go to the short line, show CHL, walk in. It is a good thing for us. They don't even check to see if you have a Cold Steel machete in your pocket. Yet here people are parsing words out of the statutes and inventing "secret identities" out of clauses irrelevent to this situation.

Many other state capitols are no where near this friendly to their CHLs. Many have had security checkpoints for ages, and they dang sure did not let armed CHL citizens in. Gunnies in other states are pointing to Texas and saying, "See -- Texas knows how to do this."

However, If we kick sand our legislators' faces over it, if we whine and complain and make a fool out of Wentworth and Perry and our other CHL friends, see how fast 30.06 signs go up on the whole building, since "governmental entities" meet there all the time. There will be plenty of other legislators and people on the security committee that will be happy to take something convenient away from the CHL community. Remember, they are already cranky about the Utah licence deal and you can expect to see some verbiage preventing Texas residents from using out of state licenses (and it will sail through the committees). Throw a fit over a non-issue like the CHL line, and it won't be any trouble for them to simplify their lives by adding the Capitol building to the list of places that CHLs can be prohibited -- just like court buildings. With exceptions for legislators, just like there are exceptions for judges and DAs.

I think this is a classic "You can please all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time," scenario.

The preservation board was essentially forced to make a lose/lose decision. If an escaped inmate went on a shooting spree or a terrorist set off a bomb in the Capitol, everyone would immediately blame the board for not doing more to protect the public, legislators, and staff. But if the board bans concealed carry in the Capitol (either through a stretch of the "at any meeting of a governmental entity" clause or by introducing and promoting a piece of legislation), they face not only opposition from gun rights advocates but also accusations of hypocrisy from gun control advocates, who would immediately point out that these pro-gun officials are more than willing letting CHL holders carry guns in other people's workplaces but not in their own.

Under the circumstances, I think they did the best they could*.

*I think the CHL line should be a staff/journalists/CHL line (which, based on some accounts, it may be; I've simply heard it described as being labeled "CHL"). As previously stated, I don't like the idea of all CHL holders being separated from the crowd and lined up for public viewing.

O6nop wrote:I can follow and wholeheartedly agree with stevie. It bothered me and I knew I'd heard of some law that protects CHL privacy.

With a search I found HB991 of the 80th Legislature (2007)

Thanks for posting this...

BrianSW99 wrote:That law is specifically relating to open records requests and says that dps can't disclose the license status of an individual to someone making a request under the freedom of information act. It prevents, for example, your employer from contacting dps without your knowledge or consent to find out if you have a chl.

That law doesn't address the separate screening line at the Capitol or the private security scenario above because no information is being obtained by an open records request. That's the same law that a lot of folks cited to say that what the State Fair was doing was illegal but I just don't see it. We may not like it, but I don't think it's illegal.

I agree, but I have made my argument that it does violate our privacy, and I see that "ELB" has made a very good rebuttal to my argument as well...