TexasCHLforum.com

Parking lot carry, to counter that big ole 30.06 at all the entrance's of my employers parking lots. Campus carry for the possibility of defense of our students in case that one wacko does show up.

My qualifying gun was my hi-point 9m and it is also my daily carry weapon. I do agree with having folks take the in person class. I know it is a pain for some of use, but there are a few folks that need to get in front of other people to remind "us" why some people shouldnt have a gun Seriously, there were a few that SCARED me in my class. Hopefully, they got some good education from the live instructor.

As far as my wish list, I want campus carry, parking lot, being able to carry in my place of business regardless of my employer's desires (did y'all see the shooting in St Louis, MO by the disgruntled employee??), open carry in the summer months , "relaxing" some of the rules with when you can pull your weapon (I understand the importance so people arent willy nillie shooting people, but waiting until you are "in it" is a bit late IMO.

Also, I just got my voter registration card and need to remember all those fine folks that decided that campus carry and the parking lot bill weren't important :-)

Napier wrote:...I would require qualification with a mousegun. I can pass the test with one, as I regularly shoot mine at 25 yards. I believe that if you aren't proficient with what you may be drawing worst case, you got no binness carrying.

Could someone share with me the DPS rationalization for having the bifurcated CHL rule? While I own and occasionally have carried a SA, my preference for routine everyday carrying is one of my several revolvers, depending mostly on my attire at the time.

I do not intend to reopen the old debate comparing lots of noise and lead with an SA, on the one hand, with competent shooting of the proper weapon on the other hand. I have always wondered about the DPS rationale, particularly when I would suspect that for the novice shooter a DA, considering taking double-taps, or three, would make the on-the-line portion of the test easier. Additionally, I cannot help but feel that carrying a revolver might, in many cases, be safer than carrying one of the more modern SAs with one in the breech.

Jim

Keith - that was my point, but I guess you were being rhetorical, right? LOL, all I've got to say is that concealed is concealed.

There are folks who've "halfway" attempted to get it right too - I've seen small 30.06 signs (they're barely noticeable), which, of course, are invalid, but at first glance the wording did appear to be correct but the signs were waaaay too small, like 8.5"x11" sheet of paper, or smaller, the wording clearly was not 1" tall as prescribed by 30.06. Maybe the law needs to include criminal penalties for the arresting officer if the sign is not valid? I know, a pipe-dream!

I tell you what I'd like to see (but will probably never happen), a state-mandated AND produced 30.06 sign (can you say TX Prison System labor?? like license plates) and language in the law that would spell it out quite clearly that to properly prohibit CHL that it had to be THAT sign that was posted, no other sign...and on EVERY entrance (as jimlongley has mentioned/posted). From what I recall and have seen on these forums, TABC provides a downloadable sign that the end-user prints out, of course, this is a much smaller sign - but does TABC also provide 51% establishments with a hard copy of the sign if requested? Just curious, as all of the 51% signs I've seen have been identical, same with the "unlicensed possession" signs.

Keith B wrote:

PUCKER wrote:Keith - (here I go beating this "dead horse" again LOL) From what you've posted and we've discussed (here: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30459" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) the specific 30.06 wording doesn't matter to some cops.

Yep. And your point is?

My point is that with the requirements we have the size of the sign is a deterrent for many businesses to post, worded exactly right or not. If they attempt to get it right, then it will still be big. And, I have the option to choose if I ignore a non-compliant sign. If I so choose to do so, then I ALWAYS run the risk of some LEO who decides they want to pursue arresting me for carrying because I was found out and they are ignorant of the law or choose to ignore it. And yes, there are lots of different types of cases where they are aware of the law but bend it to their liking anyway and let the Prosecuting Attorney or Judge sort out the actual meaning and interpretation.

This is a topic I haven't heard discussed before:

taxation of firearms & ammunition.

Churches enjoy tax-free status because of freedom of religion, right? If RKBA is so important that it's the second amendment, why not make ensure our freedoms are not encroached by punitive taxation by eliminating sales tax, excise tax, etc on these items?

RNH

RHENRIKSEN wrote:This is a topic I haven't heard discussed before:

taxation of firearms & ammunition.

Churches enjoy tax-free status because of freedom of religion, right? If RKBA is so important that it's the second amendment, why not make ensure our freedoms are not encroached by punitive taxation by eliminating sales tax, excise tax, etc on these items?

RNH

Interesting, but not the full reason. Churches are exempt on taxes of SOME things due to separation of church and state. That is primarily on the contribution of members (just like any 501c-3 non profit institution.). IF the church SELLS a service (day care, school, etc) then they still must pay taxes on that portion. So, unless the industries that make the ammo are declared non-profit, then this would not work. AND if they sold items (ammo) then they would have to pay taxes on that. Sorry, good idea! FWIW, I'm minister of a church and have had to work through all of the non-profit paperwork.
Wayne

Can we at least try to get the language strengthened, ie non-applicability of non-compliant signs?

The language is already very clear about what is a compliant sign and being non-compliant would make it non-applicable so I don't see what could be gained by changing the language. The LEOs who are currently choosing to ignore the law on this subject won't be swayed by different wording.

wgoforth wrote:Interesting, but not the full reason. Churches are exempt on taxes of SOME things due to separation of church and state. That is primarily on the contribution of members (just like any 501c-3 non profit institution.). IF the church SELLS a service (day care, school, etc) then they still must pay taxes on that portion. So, unless the industries that make the ammo are declared non-profit, then this would not work. AND if they sold items (ammo) then they would have to pay taxes on that. Sorry, good idea! FWIW, I'm minister of a church and have had to work through all of the non-profit paperwork.
Wayne

Guess that's why I've never heard anything on the topic! :D Thanks.

57Coastie wrote:Could someone share with me the DPS rationalization for having the bifurcated CHL rule? While I own and occasionally have carried a SA, my preference for routine everyday carrying is one of my several revolvers, depending mostly on my attire at the time. Jim

I believe that the rational is that a SA is mechanically more complicated to operate than a revolver. They assume if you have the skills to operate a SA then you can also operate a revolver, but not vice-versa.

WildBill wrote:

57Coastie wrote:Could someone share with me the DPS rationalization for having the bifurcated CHL rule? While I own and occasionally have carried a SA, my preference for routine everyday carrying is one of my several revolvers, depending mostly on my attire at the time. Jim

I believe that the rational is that a SA is mechanically more complicated to operate than a revolver. They assume if you have the skills to operate a SA then you can also operate a revolver, but not vice-versa.

Tks, Bill, but..."more complicated to operate"? I guess that is a subjective matter.

BTW, a good buddy sent me a PM to tell me that this regime was not instituted by the DPS, but rather by the legislature. I have never expected the legislature to have a rationale for its enactments.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:

WildBill wrote:

57Coastie wrote:Could someone share with me the DPS rationalization for having the bifurcated CHL rule? While I own and occasionally have carried a SA, my preference for routine everyday carrying is one of my several revolvers, depending mostly on my attire at the time. Jim

I believe that the rational is that a SA is mechanically more complicated to operate than a revolver. They assume if you have the skills to operate a SA then you can also operate a revolver, but not vice-versa.

Tks, Bill, but..."more complicated to operate"? I guess that is a subjective matter.

BTW, a good buddy sent me a PM to tell me that this regime was not instituted by the DPS, but rather by the legislature. I have never expected the legislature to have a rationale for its enactments.

Jim

The SA can have a manual safety, grip safety, mag release button, slide lock/release lever. The revolver has only a cylinder release and trigger to operate. I am not saying I agree with the rule, but I have observed many people struggle to figure out how to operate a SA handgun. I have seen people load a magazine with the bullets facing the wrong way as well as trying to insert the magazine backwards. I have never seen this happen with a person using a revolver.

I have no comment on the legislature.

I would really like to see the employer parking lot bill passed. I hate having to leave everything at home untill after work each day.
I would also like to see the "not applicable" subsection in TPC §46.15 enacted as Charled mentioned earlier.
I would also like to see more in depth coverage of what we would need to know after we have had to use our weapon for self defense.

CHL has been around for about 14 years. I think just as many places have done away with 3006 than have started. Just my opinion not stated as fact or can be statistically proven.

I say that we change the exact wording of the 30.06 statute every 2 years so that the anti-gunners cannot keep up with it and signs that are not updated are not enforceable.

I love nothing more than walking past an old "Pursuant to section 4429 (ee)" sign from way-back-when that no longer applies.

OK, the upsides of having an online course would be standardized training, and more flexibility for those of us who have crazy work schedules that make it very difficult to attend a 2-day course. The downside of course would be less retained knowledge.

As for what I would like to see changed, I would like to see an exception to a portion of the class for ALL LEOs, including us military guys. Perhaps allow the refresher course in lieu of the full certification course. Since a large portion of the class is spent on firearms safety and use of force, I don't see why we can't have a shorter class that just covers the state laws and requirements for those of us who have had safety and UOF stuffed down our throats for years.