TexasCHLforum.com

Photoman wrote:I find the "house rules" position interesting. Popcorn? Camera? Please! I'm not interested in popcorn and cameras. I'm talking about my God given right to defend myself and a bunch of tinhorn billionaires, that are fleecing the government, don't have a leg to stand on telling me they are above the law.

Ding, Ding, Ding...Give yerself a prize...

But you do realize some people will still go and keep them at that payscale...

And they could give a rats about you and your right(s)...

But, thats no reason to be angry or stomp off and hold your breath...I believe we'll have a more mature, sensible debate, and a more substansive solution, in the future, that will compel these bazillionaires to pay attention and give up on this deal hopefully someday...

I've been thinking about the reply by John at the AAC.

The things he defines in the house rules, i.e. Popcorn, Water, Cameras, Knives are not the subject of any laws that specifically regulate these things..

Handguns ARE the subject of a Texas Law that specifically allows their carry under circumstances set for the in the law, as well as allows their prohibition or not under certain circumstances only.

In other words, one may regulate popcorn all one wants, but one may not regulate something that has its specific use spelled out under law.

Unfortunately, a layman arguing these points with the AAC is not likely to get very far. It seems that a decision may have to come from the Texas AG, or through case law.

In my opinion, this is something I'd look to TSRA to address - create a test case situation and pursue it through the courts.

Rex B wrote:In my opinion, this is something I'd look to TSRA to address - create a test case situation and pursue it through the courts.

Unfortunately, that's hard on the person who is the test case. It's also possible that a judge would throw out the charge on a preliminary motion, and no case law would be made.

- Jim

Geez, 12 pages of posts and I am still confused! Bottom line be compliant rather you want to or not or become the test case. Your choice.

I like the idea someone else had. Unite, fund and fight. I would join a organization like that in a heart beat. I feel that if I am allowed to carry than I should be allowed to carry any where, any time PERIOD.

All this has been very interesting. My answer to this is simply do not go until the rules are changed.

I have never been there and I have no desire to go. They would have to PAY ME to drive there for anything!

If more people just stopped going, maybe they would "get the message"?

dac1842 wrote: I like the idea someone else had. Unite, fund and fight. I would join a organization like that in a heart beat. I feel that if I am allowed to carry than I should be allowed to carry any where, any time PERIOD.

I agree with your sentiments, but I we all need to remember - We are not being ALLOWED to do something, we are exercising a basic right. If we do not fight such attempts to limit this basic freedom, we become sheep.

As a very general statement, if I'm given a choice as to how I want to correct a problem, my first choice would be legislation, then a court challenge, then an AG Opinion. We have far more control over a bill in the legislative process than we do a judge or an attorney working in the AG's office and writing the opinion.

Work on the 2009 Legislative Session has already begun.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Work on the 2009 Legislative Session has already begun.

Chas.

Thank you, Charles for all of your hard work in getting good gun legislation passed and squashing bad gun legislation. You are truly an asset to CHL'ers and Texas as a whole (not to mention all you do for/with the NRA). I'm sure you're working on a way to make it absolutely clear what facilities can and cannot be posted.

Rex B wrote:

dac1842 wrote: I agree with your sentiments, but I we all need to remember - We are not being ALLOWED to do something, we are exercising a basic right. If we do not fight such attempts to limit this basic freedom, we become sheep.

The problem is that it may not be legal to exercise that basic right at that location. The AA Center seems to disagree, for instance. (FWIW, so do I.) The way such things are properly addressed is as Chas has suggested, thorugh legislation, an AG opinion, or through the courts.

You don't want to be the test case.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: You don't want to be the test case.

We should not need a test case. We should be able to just sue and win.

I think Renegade is right. That's all these decision makers fear. The all-mighty law suit.

Been lurking on this forum for quite sometime, and finally made an account to post. Don't know if this has been brought up or not.

I believe there is a section in the CHL law that states something to the effect of, a large gathering of children, is a requirement for disarming.

jknc wrote:Been lurking on this forum for quite sometime, and finally made an account to post. Don't know if this has been brought up or not.

I believe there is a section in the CHL law that states something to the effect of, a large gathering of children, is a requirement for disarming.

You should have saved creating an account for something other than bumping a 7 year old post with something that is beyond the realm of about as wrong as you can get. I truly hope you have not taken a CHL course and have just been mislead by someone.

To the point of this crusty old thread, as with several Ft. Worth facilities that post invalid 30.06 signs where Ft. Worth PD has not only acknowledged but stated they will not arrest, an officer cannot arrest for that which is not a crime. That in itself IS a crime and I doubt you'll find an LEO that is willing to go there.

Now back to the cellar for this old crusty thread.

jknc wrote:Been lurking on this forum for quite sometime, and finally made an account to post. Don't know if this has been brought up or not.

I believe there is a section in the CHL law that states something to the effect of, a large gathering of children, is a requirement for disarming.

You made an account and bumped a discussion dormant for seven years to say that?