TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:I am somewhat annoyed that they can open carry when I cannot, but that's an argument I think i'm on the minority end of with most of you folks

I agree open carry would be the way to go but I would add I think level 2 retention holsters would be needed and I do not know what would be faster drawing from these or from underneath a shirt.

retrieverman wrote:Mall ninjas packing heat outside the mall, now that is a scary thought.

Why’s that any scarier then CHL’s carrying pistols in public? Just because we can pass a very simplistic written test, sit through a few hours of minimal instruction which has nothing to do with ability to use the weapon, and pass a very easy shooting test we’re “better� then an employee of a security company?

And now with the recent bills that went into effect, basically any adult that isn’t forbidden from owning a pistol can carry one in his/her car, and that doesn’t require any testing, certification, class time, or even a requirement to notify LEO during traffic stops.

I don’t have any problem with this law. Let them open carry. Will a few do stupid things, probably…just like CHL’s, and for that matter, LEO’s. But I suspect the majority are normal folks and will conduct themselves appropriately…just like CHL’s and LEO's.

casingpoint wrote:"The state’s 4,000 armed security officers, including 60 like Marquez at Blue Moon Investigations, are part of this new presence designed to protect the public and themselves when police aren’t around"

Just who is the "designer" of this questionable policy? If Texas perceives the need for additional visible deterrent by putting more guns on the street, the legislature should have enacted open carry.

Its an incremental thing. I see it as the more guns seen on the street the easier the public will come to accept it. As It was explained to me that the TSRA decided to pick its battles before the congressional session, I don't believe they had much to do with this one other than to endorse it.

The battles that the TSRA chose to fight this year were:
THe Parking lot BIll
THe new Traveling Bill
The Stand Your Gound Bill:

Major battles that they didn't want to address are

Kill Zones in Schools.
Open Carry.

I think in hindsight they might have wished the pursued the Kill zones in our school systems over the parking lot bill. Still all in all to most of us they did pretty well, and while important as a right and a mind set, open carry isn't really that important on a practical level.
while I'm Impressed what was accomplished in Texas this year, especially considering that it was a abbreviated session.
Compare this to the progress that which made in Washington DC. in the past 2 years.

Lucky45 wrote:

05:46 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 4, 2007

By Jason Whitely / 11 News KHOU

A new Texas law that went into effect over the weekend allows private security officers to carry guns in public.
What officers are saying about the law The law is designed to deter crime.
Used to be that private security officers like Lt. Robert Marquez, who work for Blue Moon Investigations, had to leave their firearms in their car unless they were on the job. That’s not the case anymore.

I guess I missed somethihng along the way, but what new law is being referred to here?

private security officers to carry guns in public

Smells like Turkey Bacon.

When you start classifying certain groups that can open carry (are better trusted/prepared/etc.) than another person, you prove that gun laws are elitist in nature.
Meaning that one group of people is better than another. Extrapolate this philosophy to society and you get racism.

What is the difference between someone with a CHL and a Security Person? Some would say that Security Personal have more training. I would beg to differ that all security personal are better trained to all CHL’rs.

You can not allow certain groups of civilian/nongovernment/nonfelons etc. people to open carry without allowing them all.

I am a commissioned security officer, and this is the first I've heard of this law. Does anyone have a cite? I'd love to see it.

stoneface wrote:I am a commissioned security officer, and this is the first I've heard of this law. Does anyone have a cite? I'd love to see it.

PC §46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) Sections 46.02 (Unlawful carrying weapon) and 46.03 (Places prohibited) do not apply to:

(7)(b) *[as added by Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., HB 1815.] Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(4) holds a security officer commission issued by the Texas
Private Security Board, if:
(A) the person is engaged in the performance of the person's
duties as a security officer or traveling to and from the person's place
of assignment;
(B) the person is wearing a distinctive uniform; and
(C) the weapon is in plain view;

(7)(5)
(b)(ii) acting as a personal protection officer and carrying the
person's security officer commission and personal protection officer
authorization;

stoneface wrote:I am a commissioned security officer, and this is the first I've heard of this law. Does anyone have a cite? I'd love to see it.

I am also a commissioned security officer. I have not heard of this law change until this was posted. I would love for it to be true, but I need to see it in writing before I belive it. I have never liked the fact that for me to pay for gas on my way home from work, I had to lock my weapon up in my car and not have it on my hip. It would make me worried with the people seeing an empy holster on me and wondering where my gun was.

Talking about aesthetic evaluation. We have LE officers that think it's a bad ideal for others to have weapons exept them. Then we have CHLs who think that private citizens should not carry in their vehicle because of no "training." Now we have people thinking it is a bad ideal for security officers who go through more training that the CHL's to carry open. To me it is no worse than politicians saying the 2nd amendment is meant for hunting. We really have met our enemy! You either believe in the right to keep and bear arms or you don't. By the way a CHL is a violation of my rights to do what I already had the right to do to start with

I was able to dig up the bill here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80 ... 02101F.HTM

The way I read it, it does NOT allow security officers to just wander around in public with their guns on. It does remove the word "directly" from the "traveling directly to or from" the place of work; I read this as a relaxation that would allow us to stop for gas or step into a restaurant on the way to work or home from work (insert standard IANAL disclaimer). Seemingly, this would also allow us to do the same while on duty (for example, up to now, while on duty I have to go through the drive through on my meal break; conceivably, I would be allowed to go inside now).

I understand the issues of liability and risk--that is, a uniformed security guard will probably be the first target if something goes down, and the BG's will probably not take the time to read your badge to see if you actually work there or somewhere else. It's something to consider before enjoying this apparent new freedom.

Longtooths wrote:When you start classifying certain groups that can open carry (are better trusted/prepared/etc.) than another person, you prove that gun laws are elitist in nature.


What is the difference between someone with a CHL and a Security Person?

I am not history buff, but I believe that gun laws have ALWAYS been elitist in nature and are less so today (in this country) since there they don't discriminate against a race or economic class.

And the difference between a CHL and a security person (for the most part, but not always) is an ATTITUDE!!!

Carl, yer gonna give yerself a headache again!!!

I kinda like what Liberty itemized out there...

When you look at the list, sure a lot got done this last session, and every session I can go back on aince 1995, we've been gradually chipping away at all these little booger-boos that we've all be trying to get changed or tweeked to suit us...

There are probably quite a few things that could be done still, but I'm not so sue the "big" issue list is very long...

I wold also like to do things legislatively that would make it exrtemely hard to turn the tide against us...If not eliminate those risks...But that might be too much...

Philisophically I'm with Carl all the way (I've been that way for as long as I can remember)...I'd like for our RKBA to be unhindered, unrestricted in all forms...

Our moral, individual/inalienable right to defend ourselves should not be based upon what the goverment believes is reasonable...Thus restricting the means by which we choose to do so...And with what...And how, either concealed or openly...

I want the choice,and I want the decision to be mine, not someone elses idea...

Amazingly the government is not hindered by any restrictions on how it defends us...And them for that matter, for what its worth...

Its not like I'm going to go buy nukes or full-automatic weapons (well maybe ) or some other form of indescriminate form of weaponry...

That would be stupid...And very unreasonable...

I do just fine with what I have now...And maybe the Barrett .50 I'd like to get someday...But thst is as far as I'll go, for now...

carlson1 wrote:Talking about aesthetic evaluation. We have LE officers that think it's a bad ideal for others to have weapons exept them. Then we have CHLs who think that private citizens should not carry in their vehicle because of no "training." Now we have people thinking it is a bad ideal for security officers who go through more training that the CHL's to carry open. To me it is no worse than politicians saying the 2nd amendment is meant for hunting. We really have met our enemy! You either believe in the right to keep and bear arms or you don't. By the way a CHL is a violation of my rights to do what I already had the right to do to start with

stevie_d_64 wrote:There are probably quite a few things that could be done still, but I'm not so sue the "big" issue list is very long...

I always thought the big issue list was pretty short to begin with. I want Chapter 46 repealed. Everything else is small steps on the way to that goal.