TexasCHLforum.com

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs. I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole. Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon. My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades. As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

SA-TX

When did signs go down due to CHL protest. Do you have actual examples of such?

So current law is an excuse for counter-productive conduct? I can't imagine that more than a handful of rational people buy that argument. That argument is essentially, "I'll continue act irresponsible and counter-productively unless you give me what I want." What a childish attitude.

Indeed. I'd think a bigger push would be to ban OC of long guns as well as handguns. Have you seen any noise about that Charles?

How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

So current law is an excuse for counter-productive conduct? I can't imagine that more than a handful of rational people buy that argument. That argument is essentially, "I'll continue act irresponsible and counter-productively unless you give me what I want." What a childish attitude.

Indeed. I'd think a bigger push would be to ban OC of long guns as well as handguns. Have you seen any noise about that Charles?

Austin "chatter" indicates there will be an effort to either ban open-carry of long guns, or to limit people to carrying long guns unloaded and fully cased.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Got it, thanks!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

No I don't. My point is that even if the penalty is reduced in order to get the statute passed, the law is still effective. Even $500/day would garner attention in a negative way.

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

No I don't. My point is that even if the penalty is reduced in order to get the statute passed, the law is still effective. Even $500/day would garner attention in a negative way.

I agree. Hopefully, the legislators won't use the amount of the fine as "justification" not to pass the legislation. Just trying to think ahead some.

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

gljjt wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

Even if the penalty is reduced it is still effective. 1. There is a cost to breaking the law. 2. If a penalty is being assessed, clearly the sign is not enforceable. No need to be intimidated. Walk right past.

I understand all of that. I am asking if the amount of the penalty will impede the passing of the legislation. Do you have an answer for the question I asked asked Charles?

No I don't. My point is that even if the penalty is reduced in order to get the statute passed, the law is still effective. Even $500/day would garner attention in a negative way.

I agree. Hopefully, the legislators won't use the amount of the fine as "justification" not to pass the legislation. Just trying to think ahead some.

Same here. I'd prefer higher but would take lower over nothing. More import than $ value is getting signs removed and clearly, even to those posting the sign, negating the perceived effectiveness of the sign. I can't see arrests being made for passing a sign where fines are accrueing. Not once the law goes into effect and a few fines are levied and hands slapped.

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gljjt wrote:How would 30.06 signs handled with regards to public meetings? It seems me that an entity could just say that the sign only applies during public meetings as defined by statute, leaving it up all the time as permanent intimidation factor.

That's where a bill like HB508 last session comes in. It would create a $10,000 per day/per sign fine. It will be filed again in 2015, probably by Rep. Guillen who filed it last session.

In the scenario you suggest, the sign would only be enforceable during a governmental meeting, so every day that it is posted when no meeting is going on would be a separate violation. Even the day of the meeting would be a violation because it would not be enforceable for the entire 24 hr. period.

Chas.

Charles,
I am all for this legislation passing. However, I am curious if the legislators would be reluctant to get behind is using the excuse the penalty ($10,000) per day is excessive. While I believe penalties should be stiff, especially when people's rights are being violated, do the legislators believe the same and agree this penalty is palatable?

HB508 passed both the House and Senate last session, but the Senate added a provision that would have allowed all elected officials with a CHL to carry everywhere in the State. This amendment was unacceptable to the House and the Bill died in the House after a Conference committee report was issued.

The amount of the fine was/is not a problem.

Chas.

Thanks Charles. I had forgotten about the amendment.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs. I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole. Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon. My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades. As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

SA-TX

When did signs go down due to CHL protest. Do you have actual examples of such?

Based on searches here Taco Cabana seems to be the most well-known example. Here are some other examples of signs coming down and judge for yourself if they are a result of "CHL protest" (one is where a CHLer in MN has their equivalent sign removed).

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=49631&p=609167&hili ... ed#p609167" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42882&p=518285&hili ... ed#p518285" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27354&p=312372&hili ... ed#p312372" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point was: Have any businesses reversed course after initially posting an anti-gun or fully compliant 30.06 sign? Yes there are examples of this. Sign today or as a result of the OC zealots doesn't necessarily equal forever. As mentioned, I personally know that Fry's Electronics in Arlington one had a 30.06 sign but took it down some number of years ago.

SA-TX