TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote: LEO is not required to disarm when entering facilities with hazardous flammable substances. Why should we?
Anygun

Huh???

I didnt want to hijack the other thread so Im posting this question here...

Where in the law does it say a CHL holder is required to disarm when entering a facility with flammable substances????

This is the first time Ive heard this

I don't know what the original discussion was (you might want to link to it) but there is no such law, unless those substances are in an already prohibited place, or covered under 30.06.

Kind of broad folks, even our kitchens have flammables in them.

Keep in mind laws and safety regs are not the same thing, if you referring to industrial storage areas.

Jason73 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: LEO is not required to disarm when entering facilities with hazardous flammable substances. Why should we?
Anygun

Huh???

I didnt want to hijack the other thread so Im posting this question here...

Where in the law does it say a CHL holder is required to disarm when entering a facility with flammable substances????

This is the first time Ive heard this

I was referring to industrial facilities. IIRC the thread was about several Utah legislator types who were touring industrial facilities and they had to disarm to enter.

I have worked in the chemical industry for over 28 years. Firearms have always been prohibited. LEO do not have to disarm and I have seen many instances of LEO in industrial facilities.

I would hate to see what would happen if a CHL holder packed in an industrial facility and was caught in a vehicle search. I wish I had a dollar for every time my vehicle was searched.

I do not know if it is covered in federal or state regs. Company policy says so.

Why should we be required to disarm if LEO do not have to?

Anygun

this sounds like it's a mix-up with the failed attempts of OSHA to instigate legislation a couple of months ago that would have created all kinds of problems for firearms enthusiasts in general. I believe it has been temporarily blocked, but don't think for a minute that it won't be back in some form or another.

anygunanywhere wrote:I would hate to see what would happen if a CHL holder packed in an industrial facility and was caught in a vehicle search.

Absent a 30.06 notice, nothing at all would happen, legally speaking. Well, not other than being promptly given verbal notice, which is just as valid as the sign.