Charles L. Cotton wrote:longtooth wrote:Kalrog you are right. Got into this a couple years ago. Most folks, like me, define the professional sporting events clause as B-balls, football, soccer, hockey, track, tennis... Well while talking to a friend about the PSE thing he said, "you know there are a few that everyone always forgets or never even think about. Rodeo was the 1st named.

Golf, go watch but go naked. The worst was this. Texas Forest Festival is OK. BUT, sit down in the bleachers to watch the PROOOFESSIONAL Lumberjack Competitions &

again. Charles help us out. LEO's & instructors. We need to

this one out if we can.
I can tell you that the legislature had only football, baseball and basketball in mind during all of the discussions on this issue. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone made a comment about fans getting mad at an umpire, line judge, etc. and shooting at him. I kept pointing out the dark parking lots we have to traverse to our cars, but that fell on deaf ears. (I fairness I have to admit that this was a time when our opposition was preaching that there would be blood in the streets, so some concessions had to be made to get SB60 passed.)
Nevertheless, the phrase "professional sporting event" is not limited to those sports and I believe it includes any sport for which the participants are paid or can win prize money.
Regards,
Chas.
But Charles...Since we are hot and heavy on honoring the "intent" of the law...Wouldn't it be safe to assume the intent was not because the professional nature of the sporting event was not driven by the celebrity status of the players, or the contraversial nature of how the game is played and referre'ed (or judged)...
But, by the fact that alcohol, and other inhibiting reducing factors are present at those events???
And even though I know my good CHL friends out there are not partaking in the consumption of alcohol at these places...Others will, and the chance that a reasonable "sober" person, could for no malicious intent irritate an unreasonable "intoxicated" person, where that could get out of hand???
I mean my mind is just working around this "what if", but its one I have always thought about when this issue comes up...
So as far as defining a "professional sporting event", thats just another one in a long line of clarifications the legislation is going to have to tackle...
I know it would be defensable to carry at a "venue" tht hosts PSE's, that also host concerts and non-PSE events that you should be ok to carry to those events...
But we know the complicating factors in that, are that the facility may leave the metal detectors on, to screen spectators at those events, and have other illegal prohibitive restrictions placed on the normal public, that we may not want or desire to have to explain to the doofus security personnel that we are in the right, and that becoming a negative encounter...
I think alot of the barriers we are encountering these days has to do with a lot of these definitions and situations where we as law abiding CHL'ers ar noticing, and are only asking for those issues to be once and for all reviewed...And I don't think that is unfair to expect them to get it together in the next session...
I certainly do not want to be put in a situation where I am asked to respond to the question: "What do you need a gun in here for?"
And my crase response would be: "None of your business! I am legal to carry in this facility while this event is taking place!"
I would hope we don't ever have to do that...And the other side of the coin is "they" (people who conduct a non PSE event) are not going to worry about what "our" concenrs are...And that its is up to us to shake the tree a bit and get our ducks in order so that those who don;t care about our plight, have at the very least, and expectation that there are people like us out there whoattend these functions, and that it should not be an issue...
Gotta run to lunch...
Later...