Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 6/28/2022 6:14:25 PM EDT
Never too early to start planning out our goals for the next Legislative Session, which will be Jan of 23.  Seems awhile from now, but most seats are not going to change hands, so getting early requests in with our reps will help to prioritize things.

After the big wins in 21, not sure what else needs to be done, which is good, as my Rep told me they try to focus on different policy items every 2-3 sessions.  The 2015 session got open and campus carry, then some minor stuff in 17 and 19, then the big gun bills last time.

That said, what would you like to see worked on next session?

I'd like to see a reduction in the number of places where carry is prohibited.  Seems foolish to prohibit it in hospitals, as why are those any more sensitive than malls/restaurants/stores?  Carry around schools is probably a non-starter after Uvalde, which is too bad as the magic signs didn't seem to work.

What else?  

Link Posted: 6/28/2022 8:37:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Originally Posted By 1stID:
Carry around schools is probably a non-starter after Uvalde, which is too bad as the magic signs didn't seem to work.


View Quote

It's perfectly legal to carry on school property with an LTC right now. You just cannot carry inside the building or on property where a school activity is taking place.
https://www.tasb.org/services/legal-services/tasb-school-law-esource/business/documents/firearms_on_dist_property.pdf

Link Posted: 6/29/2022 1:10:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Kyle's law to stop malicious prosecution of self defense, removing 30.06 all together like Alabama (no gun sign on private property has no legal effect)
Link Posted: 6/29/2022 8:47:12 AM EDT
[#3]
No civil lawsuits allowed to be filed by anyone who initiated and was involved in any illegal activity.

No civil lawsuits allowed to be filed against a land or a property owner or legal controller by a trespasser if the trespasser didn’t have owner or a controlling person’s permission to be trespassing.

Criminal and civil lawsuit immunity to anyone who was not actively involved with a civil disturbance as a participant but felt that any level of force including lethal force is or was necessary to prevent them from being injured or killed, including using a vehicle or a weapon to escape from the perceived threat.

Credit card skimmers have the option of repaying the funds they stole and 5 years in prison for each conviction or a bolt cutter is used to remove one finger for each conviction and then they spend a total of 5 years in prison.
Link Posted: 6/29/2022 9:17:52 AM EDT
[#4]
No red flag laws / severe repercussions for false reporting anything that would take away gun owner rights.
Link Posted: 6/29/2022 1:28:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Originally Posted By bradleyswine:
No civil lawsuits allowed to be filed against a land or a property owner or legal controller by a trespasser if the trespasser didn’t have owner or a controlling person’s permission to be trespassing.
View Quote

This has a chance of passing because it makes no sense whatsoever........."permission to be trespassing" ?
Link Posted: 6/29/2022 3:04:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Repeal prohibitions on MGs, and SBRs.

Drop 51% bars, hospitals, racetracks, sporting events, amusement parks, and government meetings from prohibited places to carry for license holders.

Same for knife restricted places.
Link Posted: 6/29/2022 8:41:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: bradleyswine] [#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DogtownTom:

This has a chance of passing because it makes no sense whatsoever........."permission to be trespassing" ?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DogtownTom:
Originally Posted By bradleyswine:
No civil lawsuits allowed to be filed against a land or a property owner or legal controller by a trespasser if the trespasser didn’t have owner or a controlling person’s permission to be on the property.

This has a chance of passing because it makes no sense whatsoever........."permission to be trespassing" ?


I’m sorry.  Does this correction make you feel better?
Link Posted: 6/29/2022 8:48:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradleyswine:


I’m sorry.  Does this correction make you feel better?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bradleyswine:
Originally Posted By DogtownTom:
Originally Posted By bradleyswine:
No civil lawsuits allowed to be filed against a land or a property owner or legal controller by a trespasser if the trespasser didn’t have owner or a controlling person’s permission to be on the property.

This has a chance of passing because it makes no sense whatsoever........."permission to be trespassing" ?


I’m sorry.  Does this correction make you feel better?

I'm sorry you don't proof read. It's okay, neither does the Texas Legislature.
Link Posted: 7/1/2022 5:30:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BladedRonin:
No red flag laws / severe repercussions for false reporting anything that would take away gun owner rights.
View Quote


This will be a major concern with the newly passed national bill funneling millions of dollars to the states to pass RFL.
Link Posted: 7/1/2022 5:56:48 PM EDT
[#10]
We need legislation that removed Qualified Immunity from District Attorneys who abuse their office.

Specifically those who politically persecute people not on the actual law, but because of their political opinion or to further a political goal.

We saw Kyle Rittenhouse get put in the Grinder in WI, thankfully to be exhonerated as Not Guilty (but not for a lot of effort & lying by the Slime D.A.)  

In Travis Count, Sgt. Daniel Perry is going to go to trial on Murder for shooting a Armed Antifa Goon who was pointing an AK-47 directly at him.

The Democrat D.A. (Hyper Partizan Uber Liberal) ran the case by SEVERAL Grand Juries over a year while hiding exculpatory evidence from the Austin Police Department Investigation of the shooting in his twisted quest to finally get his murder indictment.

As we saw with the Duke LaCrosse Team Case, and Kyle Rittenhouse and others cases, many times the cases are brought not because of any actual violations of the law, but because the Political Establishment wants to take Revenge against Conservatives - the Prosecution as Punishment.  Even if finally acquitted, it will financially ruin most people with tens of  thousands or even a hundred thousand for a good legal defense & apeals.

Texas needs to find some way to make Crooked D.A.s personally responsible with fines from THEIR own pockets or Prison time.

BIGGER_HAMMER

Link Posted: 7/5/2022 12:52:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bigger_Hammer:
We need legislation that removed Qualified Immunity from District Attorneys who abuse their office.

Specifically those who politically persecute people not on the actual law, but because of their political opinion or to further a political goal.

We saw Kyle Rittenhouse get put in the Grinder in WI, thankfully to be exhonerated as Not Guilty (but not for a lot of effort & lying by the Slime D.A.)  

In Travis Count, Sgt. Daniel Perry is going to go to trial on Murder for shooting a Armed Antifa Goon who was pointing an AK-47 directly at him.

The Democrat D.A. (Hyper Partizan Uber Liberal) ran the case by SEVERAL Grand Juries over a year while hiding exculpatory evidence from the Austin Police Department Investigation of the shooting in his twisted quest to finally get his murder indictment.

As we saw with the Duke LaCrosse Team Case, and Kyle Rittenhouse and others cases, many times the cases are brought not because of any actual violations of the law, but because the Political Establishment wants to take Revenge against Conservatives - the Prosecution as Punishment.  Even if finally acquitted, it will financially ruin most people with tens of  thousands or even a hundred thousand for a good legal defense & apeals.

Texas needs to find some way to make Crooked D.A.s personally responsible with fines from THEIR own pockets or Prison time.

BIGGER_HAMMER

View Quote



Section 39.03 - Official Oppression
(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(2) intentionally denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, knowing his conduct is unlawful; or
(3) intentionally subjects another to sexual harassment.
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
(c) In this section, "sexual harassment" means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, submission to which is made a term or condition of a person's exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power, or immunity, either explicitly or implicitly.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that an offense is a felony of the third degree if the public servant acted with the intent to impair the accuracy of data reported to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Sections 48.008 and 48.009 , Education Code, under a law requiring that reporting.

Tex. Pen. Code § 39.03

Needs to be a 3rd degree felony instead of a Class A
Link Posted: 7/6/2022 1:49:08 PM EDT
[#12]
I would like to see the LTC for 18-20 year-olds changed to a legally distinct license from the license for 21+.  This would gain us reciprocity with two or three more states.
Link Posted: 7/7/2022 12:15:14 PM EDT
[#13]
When constitutional carry passed a few years ago, they did it in such a big hurry that they tagged bunch of extra lines into the statute instead of actually sitting down and taking a comprehensive look at that they were trying to accomplish. Basically, they bandaided the dog shit out of it, instead of making a complete overhaul of the statute.

So as it stands now in Harris County, almost every time I call a prosecutor and try to get an unlawful carry charge accepted by an Assistant District Attorney (rookie lawyer), they seemed completely confused about the statute, and frankly, even after reading it myself several times, I still get a little confused sometimes.

The new statute makes it legal to carry a handgun in your gun while driving intoxicated, or put differently, if you're driving drunk with a gun, you use to get an unlawful carry of a weapon charge, and a DWI charge. Now, you just get the DWI. If you're carrying a gun while drunk in public, then UCW applies, but not while you're driving (I think it says "In actual physical control"), or the owner of a vehicle.

I got a guy last night for criminal trespass with a deadly weapon and he was UCW a half a dozen different ways under the old law, but the only thing we could get him for under the new law was being drunk and armed and refused to leave a chicks apartment after she refused him sex and he went into a rage fit.

I also had a guy two weeks ago who was paranoid schizophrenic and bi-polar and off his meds and smoking "synthetic marijuana", which really means that he was smoking lord knows what kind of chinese lab produced chemicals sprayed on potpourri, who was wandering around his front yard. His mother said that the neighbors dog and toddlers were "threatening him" and the DA's office didn't want a charge on him until I mentioned that he was also walking around on his sidewalk which isn't his private property, although his front yard is still a public place...
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 9:07:58 AM EDT
[#14]
We have a law in this state that prohibits local municipalities from posting government property.  Specifically, courthouses that have other offices that do not pertain to the courts.  Unfortunately, there are counties in the state that ignore the law and prohibit citizens from carrying on government property.  Our county prohibits all weapons including pocket knives.  We also have in this state an AG who for political reasons fails to enforce this law.  

What this law needs is some teeth.  The law should be amended so enforcement is removed from the AG, and returned to the citizens.  Specifically, citizens should be able to sue the local officials and the county itself for damages (being prohibited from lawfully carrying a weapon).  Damage amount minimums should be set by law, and should also include the payment of legal fees for the plaintiff should the defendants be found liable.
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 11:19:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: ACEB36TC] [#15]
I want to see CC apply to citizens ONLY.

MASSIVE EDIT. My apologies to all. I meant to plead my case for ILLEGALS not having that right.
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 12:03:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ACEB36TC:
I want to see CC apply to citizens ONLY.
View Quote

Why?  If someone holds a green card, then what's the problem?  If they're an illegal immigrant, then they shouldn't be in the country anyways, and their possession of a firearm is already illegal.  So we should restrict green card holders because other people could violate the law?  That's dumb.

Link Posted: 7/8/2022 12:07:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ACEB36TC:
I want to see CC apply to citizens ONLY.
View Quote

Why?
I have customers who are currently Permanent Residents, trying to gain their citizenship.
Gainfully employed
Law abiding
Tax payers
Wanting to live the American Dream
Love America
One is active duty military


WHY THE FUCK should they not have the right to CC?
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 12:26:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By CleverNickname:

Why?  If someone holds a green card, then what's the problem?  If they're an illegal immigrant, then they shouldn't be in the country anyways, and their possession of a firearm is already illegal.  So we should restrict green card holders because other people could violate the law?  That's dumb.

View Quote


My bad. I meant to plead the case for ILLEGALS to not have that right.
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 12:27:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DogtownTom:

Why?
I have customers who are currently Permanent Residents, trying to gain their citizenship.
Gainfully employed
Law abiding
Tax payers
Wanting to live the American Dream
Love America
One is active duty military


WHY THE FUCK should they not have the right to CC?
View Quote


My bad. I meant to plead the case for ILLEGALS not having that right.
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 12:31:05 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ACEB36TC:
My bad. I meant to plead the case for ILLEGALS not having that right.
View Quote

They already can't legally possess a firearm.
Link Posted: 7/8/2022 1:10:26 PM EDT
[#21]
While it's a "be careful what you ask for" deal, let's settle the 30.05/06/07 signage and do away with all of them.
Link Posted: 7/10/2022 10:35:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Gopher:
While it's a "be careful what you ask for" deal, let's settle the 30.05/06/07 signage and do away with all of them.
View Quote


What do you propose replace it?  I actually really liked it when it was just 30.06.  A property owner could easily legally control their property by posting 30.06, they could choose to appear to control it (while still legally allowing carry), or they could choose not to post anything and allow CCW with no restriction.  The new signs definitely muddy things, although I think it's still in our favor overall.

Are you suggesting that property owners no longer be able to post a legal prohibition to CCW?  I would oppose that.  I'm all about property owners' rights.
Link Posted: 7/10/2022 11:04:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


What do you propose replace it?  I actually really liked it when it was just 30.06.  A property owner could easily legally control their property by posting 30.06, they could choose to appear to control it (while still legally allowing carry), or they could choose not to post anything and allow CCW with no restriction.  The new signs definitely muddy things, although I think it's still in our favor overall.

Are you suggesting that property owners no longer be able to post a legal prohibition to CCW?  I would oppose that.  I'm all about property owners' rights.
View Quote



That's why I say be careful what you ask for. Simplify it, one for no carry, one for any type carry. Verbal notice still overrides the signage. I wonder what the percentage of non-LTC carriers know what the signs even mean.
Link Posted: 7/11/2022 10:10:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


What do you propose replace it?  I actually really liked it when it was just 30.06.  A property owner could easily legally control their property by posting 30.06, they could choose to appear to control it (while still legally allowing carry), or they could choose not to post anything and allow CCW with no restriction.  The new signs definitely muddy things, although I think it's still in our favor overall.

Are you suggesting that property owners no longer be able to post a legal prohibition to CCW?  I would oppose that.  I'm all about property owners' rights.
View Quote


I understand a local shop, mom and pop style, getting to decide what comes and goes on their own property. However not a fan of large corps restricting conceal carry to appease some ESG/SJW demands. I don't agree with shipping companies, ie UPS and Fedex, convention centers, movie theaters, etc stating no carry. If a company posts a sign, better be legit screening.

For example, went up to Cedar Park to the HEB Center for Comic Con. They had 3006 & 3007 signs above the doors. Inside, half assed security running scanners, but not actually checking people. Everyone was setting off alarms. None of the hired goons there were armed. Didnt see any cops or deputies nearby. Seemed like a nice soft target, plenty of long lines, tight areas, and super crowded.

The other thing the legislative session needs to address is allowing employees carry. Worked at plenty of city halls and other office buildings and not allowed to carry. Wasn't allowed to carry while doing utility work either. An employee shouldnt be fired for wanting to protect themselves.
Link Posted: 7/11/2022 10:38:53 AM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Veers57:


I understand a local shop, mom and pop style, getting to decide what comes and goes on their own property. However not a fan of large corps restricting conceal carry to appease some ESG/SJW demands. I don't agree with shipping companies, ie UPS and Fedex, convention centers, movie theaters, etc stating no carry. If a company posts a sign, better be legit screening.
View Quote


I'm on board with this.  I suppose we could define the required screening, but, more important in my mind, is placing all liability for safety on any business that prohibits carry.

I don't see how it's moral to not allow a property owner to determine who/what they allow on their property.
Link Posted: 7/11/2022 12:48:57 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


I'm on board with this.  I suppose we could define the required screening, but, more important in my mind, is placing all liability for safety on any business that prohibits carry.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


I'm on board with this.  I suppose we could define the required screening, but, more important in my mind, is placing all liability for safety on any business that prohibits carry.

While I think every business should be delighted to have its customers carry, placing liability on the business owner for a criminals actions is downright wrong.
You don't have to shop at such a business.
You are free to patronize gun friendly stores.
Blaming a business owner for the actions of a criminal? Fuck that.

This is California level stupid....just like making gun owners buy liability insurance simply for owning guns. Thats as wrong as making a business buy liability insurance for not allowing guns.



I don't see how it's moral to not allow a property owner to determine who/what they allow on their property.

It's not.

YOU are responsible for your own safety. Period.
If you don't like a store policy, go elsewhere.

We love to decry snowflakes and Karens...........what could be more snowflake than bitching because Dildos R Us is posted 30.06/30.07 ?



Link Posted: 7/11/2022 2:17:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DogtownTom:

While I think every business should be delighted to have its customers carry, placing liability on the business owner for a criminals actions is downright wrong.
You don't have to shop at such a business.
You are free to patronize gun friendly stores.
Blaming a business owner for the actions of a criminal? Fuck that.

This is California level stupid....just like making gun owners buy liability insurance simply for owning guns. Thats as wrong as making a business buy liability insurance for not allowing guns.




It's not.

YOU are responsible for your own safety. Period.
If you don't like a store policy, go elsewhere.

We love to decry snowflakes and Karens...........what could be more snowflake than bitching because Dildos R Us is posted 30.06/30.07 ?



View Quote


I hear you, and I could be persuaded to see it your way, but how is this different from other types of liability?  When I'm out in public, carrying a gun is one of the tools I have to help ensure my safety.  When I enter a business (or anyone's property), I expect a reasonable level of safety.  

I don't expect wet, slippery floors at walmart.  If Walmart neglects to address wet slippery floors, and grandma falls and breaks a hip, I expect Walmart to be liable.  

If a business actively prohibits people from bringing the tools that could help ensure safety from a criminal shooter, I expect that business to be liable.  It's not about the criminality of the action, it's about a business taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their patrons.  Prohibiting carry is certainly their right, but they need to then take additional steps to ensure people's safety.  Whether that's screening people, having security, robot gun drones, or whatever they can dream up.  Without those reasonable steps, I think they should be liable if their neglect results in people being harmed.
Link Posted: 7/11/2022 2:53:16 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


I hear you, and I could be persuaded to see it your way, but how is this different from other types of liability?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


I hear you, and I could be persuaded to see it your way, but how is this different from other types of liability?
 
Foreseeability
A convenience store that is robbed every night for a week....its foreseeable that its going to be robbed on the eighth night.
An apartment complex has multiple burglaries because the door locks are defective. Residents have notified management multiple times, yet management des not repair or replace the locks.....it's foreseeable that burglaries will continue.
but.........
A store that has thousands of customers per day, 24 hours a day, may not experience a violent crime for months if not years on its property.....so a violent crime isn't likely to be foreseeable.






When I'm out in public, carrying a gun is one of the tools I have to help ensure my safety.  When I enter a business (or anyone's property), I expect a reasonable level of safety.  

I don't expect wet, slippery floors at walmart.  If Walmart neglects to address wet slippery floors, and grandma falls and breaks a hip, I expect Walmart to be liable.
 
And they would be....if they are negligent in addressing a slippery floor. Claims for slip and falls are so common that WalMart and other retailers will have documentation on how often the stores floor is swept or cleaned. Simply falling while in WalMart isn't WalMarts fault unless they are negligent. Proving that negligence will be on your grandma. WalMart may pay her damages to avoid the expense of defending itself......but that settlement almost never will include an admission of fault.


If a business actively prohibits people from bringing the tools that could help ensure safety from a criminal shooter, I expect that business to be liable.
 
If I run into your backyard to shoot your yard crew.....are you liable for their injuries or death?
If you have a BBQ at your home, invite ARFcommers to come armed and two get into an altercation and 87 are wounded.....are you liable?



It's not about the criminality of the action, it's about a business taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their patrons.
 
Read this: negligence particularly the part on assumption of risk.



Prohibiting carry is certainly their right, but they need to then take additional steps to ensure people's safety.  Whether that's screening people, having security, robot gun drones, or whatever they can dream up.  Without those reasonable steps, I think they should be liable if their neglect results in people being harmed.

Nonsense. Posting your business with 30.06/30.07 isn't neglect by any stretch of the imagination.

Link Posted: 7/12/2022 11:23:18 AM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By DaTrueDave:


I'm on board with this.  I suppose we could define the required screening, but, more important in my mind, is placing all liability for safety on any business that prohibits carry.

I don't see how it's moral to not allow a property owner to determine who/what they allow on their property.
View Quote


This tends to be the way most of the board looks at the issue, but I suggest the framework should be different.

From the property tights perspective - two considerations:

Who is the property owner - if I rent a storefront can the property owner require me to post 30.05/6/7 signs on the property I rent? Maybe you really mean premises under your control?

Morph that into a property owner that wants to engage in racial discrimination while operating a business - laws on public accommodation come into play.

The compromise seems to be to take 30.06 out of play and turn it into requiring a specific notice to leave because of a type of conduct the business owner thinks is disruptive to the business. My right of free speech does not give me license to conduct political activity in someone's business without his consent, same idea for firearm carry. As long as I keep my mouth shut on my political views and firearm out of sight, patronizing the business can not be disruptive to the business.

A business may thing open carry disruptive and prohibit that in advance, but like other public accommodation restrictions on business granted a charter by the state to operate, the public is allowed to patronize the business in a peaceable manner.
Link Posted: 7/12/2022 1:21:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:


This tends to be the way most of the board looks at the issue, but I suggest the framework should be different.

From the property tights perspective - two considerations:

Who is the property owner - if I rent a storefront can the property owner require me to post 30.05/6/7 signs on the property I rent? Maybe you really mean premises under your control?

Morph that into a property owner that wants to engage in racial discrimination while operating a business - laws on public accommodation come into play.

The compromise seems to be to take 30.06 out of play and turn it into requiring a specific notice to leave because of a type of conduct the business owner thinks is disruptive to the business. My right of free speech does not give me license to conduct political activity in someone's business without his consent, same idea for firearm carry. As long as I keep my mouth shut on my political views and firearm out of sight, patronizing the business can not be disruptive to the business.

A business may thing open carry disruptive and prohibit that in advance, but like other public accommodation restrictions on business granted a charter by the state to operate, the public is allowed to patronize the business in a peaceable manner.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:


This tends to be the way most of the board looks at the issue, but I suggest the framework should be different.

From the property tights perspective - two considerations:

Who is the property owner - if I rent a storefront can the property owner require me to post 30.05/6/7 signs on the property I rent? Maybe you really mean premises under your control?

Morph that into a property owner that wants to engage in racial discrimination while operating a business - laws on public accommodation come into play.

The compromise seems to be to take 30.06 out of play and turn it into requiring a specific notice to leave because of a type of conduct the business owner thinks is disruptive to the business. My right of free speech does not give me license to conduct political activity in someone's business without his consent, same idea for firearm carry. As long as I keep my mouth shut on my political views and firearm out of sight, patronizing the business can not be disruptive to the business.

A business may thing open carry disruptive and prohibit that in advance, but like other public accommodation restrictions on business granted a charter by the state to operate, the public is allowed to patronize the business in a peaceable manner.


"Premises under your control."  I think that's what I meant.  I'd have to re-read the law.  I imagine any disagreements between owner and renter are settled by the contract, but what if the contract is silent?  Can either party post a property with a 30.xx sign?

Are you suggesting no ability for signs to carry legal prohibitions on otherwise lawful carry?  So, every store that wants to prohibit open carry would have to hire a greeter to stand at the door?  Prohibiting concealed carry would now require a metal detector at every door?  I'm kinda intrigued, but it already seems like too much.

One of the things I like about the 30.xx signs is that they have some pretty strict requirements for them to be posted properly.  And I like the fact that ignorant and/or virtue-signalling businesses can post gunbuster signs that don't legally do anything, but they make corporate and left leaning patrons feel better.  Personally, I'm a "concealed means concealed" kinda guy, but I do think there's value in having a specific way for properties to prohibit carry without having to inspect and notify every single person that visits.

Originally Posted By DogtownTom:
 
Nonsense. Posting your business with 30.06/30.07 isn't neglect by any stretch of the imagination.


And I never said it was.  In fact, I definitely stated that I'm in favor of the ability to post a business in that manner.  In my mind, the neglect comes in to play if/when reasonable efforts at ensuring safety aren't taken.  If you're going to prohibit lawful carry, you need to take additional reasonable steps to ensure the safety of your guests.  Neglect to do that, and you're liable.

You've made a few points that are causing me to rethink this, but I still think it's a concept worth exploring.  
Link Posted: 7/12/2022 10:44:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Strict liability of the property owner and controller for any assaultive offense committed on that property if it's posted 30.05, 30.06, and/or 30.07.

Significantly increased penalties including personal liability for any government entity and/or official illegally excluding of a person with a firearm.

Also, eliminate 30.06 and 30.07.

Remove all prohibitions of weapons that only exist to put federal law in state law (like machine guns, etc).
Link Posted: 7/14/2022 6:47:15 AM EDT
[#32]
Civil lawsuit shield law for the manufacturer of a firearm and the legal owner of the firearm if the firearm was stolen and then used in the commission of a crime.  Immunity doesn’t apply to the person or persons who used the weapon during a crime.
Link Posted: 7/14/2022 10:46:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1stID] [#33]
Some good ideas here, thanks to those who have contributed.

Here's what I'll ask my reps and gun groups to work on:

Reduction in the number of prohibited places to carry - places like racetracks, amusement parks, and especially hospitals, which can be in bad areas, so if you're visiting you leave your gun in the car, available for theft, compared to just having it with you like every other place in Texas.

Here's the listing of prohibited places, and which ones I'd think we could get removed:

On the premises of a business that derives 51% or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption; such premises are required to post notices under Texas GC §411.204; (other states have carry in bars - a higher hurdle that other places but worth including).

On the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting or interscholastic event is taking place; (I don't think the school stuff is worth the risk of scuttling the other places)

On the premises of a correctional facility; (let as is)

On the premises of a civil commitment facility; (let as is)

On the premises of a hospital or nursing home if effective notice of prohibition is given per Penal Code Chapter 30 (unless the licensee has written authorization); such premises also are required to post notices under Texas Government Code §411.204; (main one to focus on - why should LTC'ers have to leave their guns in their cars, available for theft, when they go into a hospital?  There's nothing especially unique or secure about a hospital or nursing home.  If we trust LTC'ers in stores and about everywhere else, why not when in a hospital?  Is the idea they lose control of themselves there and are going to shoot the place up?  Time to pitch this prohibited place).

On the premises of a mental hospital, as defined by Section 571.003, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the mental hospital administration.  (probably a no here - some mental hospitals have involuntary commitments, so bringing weapons on site could be used to help them escape).

In an amusement park (if effective notice of prohibition is given per Penal Code Chapter 30). (should be changed - I just hope if so that guns don't go flying off some roller coaster, but we'll have to trust those who are carrying.  Lots of grandpas taking their kids to amusement parks and just sitting and watching things, so they should be allowed to carry there).

On the premises of State Hospitals (in accordance to Health and Safety Code, Chapter 552, and effective notice of prohibition is given per Penal Code Chapter 30); (as with other hospitals - no reason to keep people from carrying).

On the physical premises of a school, grounds or buildings on which an activity sponsored by a school is being conducted, or in a school transportation vehicle; (this isn't going to change I don't think, even though obviously school shooters are not the least bit concerned about their violation of Penal Code 46.03 on their way to commit murder.  What I would like to see is the end of non-schools like zoos and such claiming they have school kids in once per year or such, and thus the whole zoo is a school so no carry.  So maybe change the "grounds or buildings on which an activity sponsored by a school is being conducted" to make sure it's only when there's a school event there, not that it happens once a year so no carry the other 364 days as well).

On the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress; (throwback - no reason to think that people are going to shoot things out while waiting for vote).

On the premises of any government court or court offices (unless the licensee has written authorization from the court); (for courts, it should be if an area has active screening measures, not just that it's the place you go to pay fines or such).

On the premises of a racetrack; (throwback - should be changed, people don't shoot a place up if Lucky doesn't come in first).

In or into a secured area of an airport; or (already a secured area)

Within 1,000 feet of premises designated as a place of execution on the day a sentence of death is set to be imposed. (seems like a throwback - few executions, and no reason to think that people are going to shoot things out at one).


For 30/06 and 30/07 places, right now it's a Class C misdemeanor if you ignore a proper sign, with a 200 dollar (or full tank of gas) fine.  It bumps up to a Class A if you're spotted with a gun and told to leave and don't.  Personally, I don't have much use for the ability to prohibit concealed carry, as it's not the businesses business how I protect myself, but it's not going away in Texas. I believe Florida has no such provision to allow business to prohibit carry, and they seem to do fine.  But having it about as low of a penalty as possible (Class C if you ignore the foolish sign), with you almost having to work at being caught (ignoring the sign, being noticed, and cops in this day and age actually showing up for a Class C level offense), is good enough for me.  

Self-defense from crooked commie DA's.  This is one I think we need to focus on.  Lots of big cities in Texas have out and out communists as DA's, who would let 6 long rap sheet felons out of jail to make room for you if you defend yourself.  Look at the solider from Ft. Hood who's going to trail in Austin for defending himself against some rat who pointed a rifle at him (and where's his chain of command at Ft. Hood?  Those spineless Generals would be in front of every camera in America if he'd been arrested at a Burn Loot Movement protest, but defend yourself from a thug and they're quiet as a church mouse).  

Now to my limited knowledge of how it works, Florida has a way to avoid commie DA's in a self defense situation.  I believe, if you wish, you can have the facts of your case reviewed by a judge, who can decide to throw the case out, and if not, it goes to a trial so you're no worse off.  No everyone uses this - George Zimmerman didn't and took his case to a trial.  Probably depends on if it's high profile enough that even a judge won't risk tossing the case, so defense attorneys don't want to tip their trial hand in another setting if it's going to trial anyway.  But for what should be slam dunk cases like the Army guy, it would allow the possibility of avoiding the risk and cost of a trial.  Cites are not getting any less communist, so this is something that we need to push for this session.

SBR's and SBS de-crimination.  Last session we got suppressors de-crimination in the state of Texas, and we should work on short barreled rifles and shotguns this session, especially if ATF goes ahead with their foolish re-classification of braced pistols as SBR's.  The State of Texas shouldn't be in the position to assist ATF arresting people for owning something that used to be fully legal.  Yes yes I know it won't do anything about the NFA - but there's no reason that Texas should make SBR's and SBS illegal themselves too - have to lead by example and get the ball rolling.

There's also a state prohibition on "armor piercing ammo", which is a vestige of the 80's COP KILLER BULLET!!! craze, and needs to be pitched too, for fear of someone saying a pistol in a rifle round fires meanie bullets so that lots of .308 or .223 ammo is prohibited.  Hasn't been an issue yet but no reason to keep such foolishness on the books.  

Link Posted: 7/15/2022 5:06:25 PM EDT
[#34]
you are going to get some kind of Red Flag law...

the wimpy republican't types are going to roll over for it...


if so..

they MUST include PROSECUTION FOR FALSE REPORTING of ANY KIND, from ex wives/husbands, CHILDRENS Spouses "tattling' on
that asshole father in law he always disliked. and FUCKIN KARENS of All Ilk..Fines and or JAIL TIME for false reports

need to do that on rape accusers who later recant "I was just mad at him and wanted him to suffer" or "LOOK AT ME, I'M A VICTIM" types

Link Posted: 7/16/2022 8:19:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TinLeg] [#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hkusp9:


The new statute makes it legal to carry a handgun in your gun while driving intoxicated, or put differently, if you're driving drunk with a gun, you use to get an unlawful carry of a weapon charge, and a DWI charge. Now, you just get the DWI. If you're carrying a gun while drunk in public, then UCW applies, but not while you're driving (I think it says "In actual physical control"), or the owner of a vehicle.

...
View Quote



The presence / not presence of a firearm should be irrelevant to the DWI charge.  

The UCW statute should not apply unless the actor was / is using the weapon in the furtherance of some crime.  Simple DUI doesn't meet that standard any more than pliers riding in the door pocket.

This is as it should be, if it is as you've stated.
Link Posted: 7/17/2022 9:39:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By douglasmorris99:
you are going to get some kind of Red Flag law...

the wimpy republican't types are going to roll over for it...


if so..

they MUST include PROSECUTION FOR FALSE REPORTING of ANY KIND, from ex wives/husbands, CHILDRENS Spouses "tattling' on
that asshole father in law he always disliked. and FUCKIN KARENS of All Ilk..Fines and or JAIL TIME for false reports

need to do that on rape accusers who later recant "I was just mad at him and wanted him to suffer" or "LOOK AT ME, I'M A VICTIM" types

View Quote



I'll be very surprised and disappointed if there's a red flag confiscation bill that's passed.  I just don't see the political movement to have that happen as of Jan 2023, after what should be a good year for Republicans this election.  Remember, last session the Legislature passed about every pro-gun bill that was submitted.  With a real conservative as Speaker of the House, the days of the Legislature being half run by the Democrats are over.

What I do see is further movement on what places are prohibited, and reducing those.  That was going to be a focus last session, but things lined up so well for Constitutional Carry that was the big focus on carry aspects, not where it's prohibited.  
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top