TexasCHLforum.com

I just read the Rundus court opinion instead of the news article. I thoguht it might be applicable to what we have been discussing here, but it truly is of limited applicability. We still have the major point of debate on whether or not the collection of CHL information is legal or permissible.

The Rundus case was brought against the State Fair of Texas (SFOT) and the City under 42 USC 1983. Section 1983 is the federal civil rights law making it illegal for people to violate our rights under color of law. The key phrase in it is "under color of law". As pointed out in rundus, that means it has to be a government based action. The question in Rundus is whether or not the City was closely tied enough to the decision to make it a government decision. Everyone agreed that it was just an SFOT decision, so it was legal.

The decision barely applies to this case. The only real city action is providing security. So, for us, it comes down to two questions. The first question is if SFOT can ban CHLs at the fair. It appears to be illegal the way I read the law, and it appears that even SFOT has agreed it cannot do this. The second question then becomes operative. Is it an effective ban because we are carrying if we are banned for refusing to give the information? I am not convinced that the court would see this as illegal, though I think it is. A very good lawyer could make this argument either way.

But in either case, it would appear that a 1983 action would be the inappropriate type of law suit. We would do better in state court since the city is no making the policy decisions. This also avoids us bringing in the civil rights aspect that has not yet been decided (Second Amendment applying to cities and right to carry over right to own). A state court could just rule on the application of 30.06.

As for the privacy policy, it is a bad argument. HIPAA does not apply since we are the only ones who see these as medical devices. The other places that are required to give privacy notices are all financial. We can request it but there is no law requiring it. We would lose in court using that as an argument, I would think.

I agree with TFrazier. In addition, I would point out that we, as a group of concerned individuals, seem to have gotten as far as we can with this right now. I do not know all of the tactics involved in anything political (or I would be President instead of Obama), but if we are going to get a law passed to correct this, TSRA may have to stand aloof from this immediate fight while they figure out the best way to address the law. Many of our best friends in the legislature like to do things quietly and avoid big public fights. This is especially true when you consider how few people this involves and what the general attitude of the public may be.

I have a lot of faith in the work of the TSRA. I believe that they will know to address this issue and are just working on the strategy and tactics of how to get a permanent fix in place.

On the NRA side, I am going to guess that they would refer this to the state group. Especially in states like ours, where there is a strong state gun group, I would think the NRA would prefer to let us address state issues ourselves. Think how this would play on the national news and what the rest of the country would say. It would get there if the NRA gets directly and publicly involved. That would also draw in some of our national enemies, like the Brady group.

jamullinstx wrote:I don't interpret the statutes in exactly the way that you do. I agree that they can ask for the information, and I think the CHL holder can legally refuse. At that point, I think the statute is clear by preventing government owned or leased property from posting 30.06 that the legislature's intent was to allow CHL holders to carry on such property. The law doesn't provide an exception for private parties leasing land from a government entity. The property remains owned by the government entity, thus the statute still applies. Allowing CHL holders into the event is part of the price of getting the favorable lease from the government entity. If they wish to exclude CHL holders they can lease privately owned property, or buy their own property.

At the point where the CHL refuses to allow his information to be collected, they should have no choice but to let them through, as clearly their stated reasons for the policy are made moot by virtue of the fact that they "shred the information at the end of the day."

It is reasonable to take differing interpretations of the law where it is not explicitly spelled out. And you certainly have good arguments for your interpretation.

I agree that the intent of the law was to not allow CHL's to be barred. But, as a general rule, the intent of the law is only looked at by a court when the written law is unclear. The second general rule for our law is that anything not forbidden is permitted. The law forbids denying a person entry on the basis of their being armed if it is government property and the person has a CHL. We agree on this. Where I think we disagree is on the way around the law. There is nothing forbidding the requirement for the entry to be logged, and many places log all entries. You are required to sign in at almost every state office in Austin, as one example, unless it is a customer service window. There is nothing forbidding the denial of entry for a person who refuses to log in.

Another example of how the exact wording of the law allows weird loopholes is in the San Antonio news this week. They have a very strong tree preservation ordinance. It has exemptions for agricultural use of the land and for homeowners. What made the news was the homeowners loophole does not have a limit on the size of the land included, even though the intent was a house plot in a neighborhood. So, if there is a person living in a house on 400 acres, they can bulldoze down all the trees, and then sell the land to the developer (this is what just happened). Another developer found the agricultural loophole and leased a plot out to a rancher for six months for grazing cattle. The rancher bulldozed down hundreds of acres of trees. At the end of the lease, the developer had cleared land and did not have to worry about the ordinance. Both cases, while clearly not the intent of the law, were legal.

I see the logging and denial of entry for refusal to allow logging as the same type of loophole. I could very well be wrong and I certainly agree it was not the intent of the law. But this is why I am suggesting we modify the law to make sure this information is considered confidential and the logging cannot be allowed in the future.

I stand corrected and forgot all about people writing down DL's. I guess I moved too far into the modern age of carrying a debit card instead of my checkbook.

But some type of law is the only answer. It might be just the CHL, or it could be the broad ban I suggested, maybe with a few exceptions.

In a private answer to another poster, I suggested modifying the current ban in Transportation Code 521.126.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#521.126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It currently bans the collection of data from the magnetic stripe, and has some valid exceptions listed. If we added the CHL, took of the limit on electronically readable data, and then we added the acceptable exceptions (such as EMS in an emergency, the ID/DL number when presented, or consent of the owner) it might be workable.

And I am sure Charles and the TSRA people are better at working with the legislature on exactly what would be workable than I am. I think some type of law is going to be the answer though.

Commander wrote:So using that logic, the Cinemark Theater where I went last weekend can start demanding my CHL and recording my information; the restaurant where I ate that night can start doing the same....they're both "private property"

Yes, they both can do so right now and you would have the same option there as at the state fair. Say no and leave the property or comply. There is no law forbidding their doing so, and being real private property (as opposed to the state fair being on government owned property), they have an even stronger claim on what they can do by policy.

There is an obvious fallacy in the logic of the people who claim that they will only show their CHL to a police officer. The State Fair is the perfect example of why. They cannot post 30.06, but can bar anyone not licensed from entering while armed and are using metal detectors. They do not need to haev peace officers at every gate (I know they do, but there is no requirement for it). The security guards could legally and properly deny you entry for refusing to show them you CHL.

The collecting of information is wrong and possibly dangerous to you. As far as I can tell, it is legal as of this point in time. I don't like the compromise of collecting it with their word on shredding it (I don't trust them any further than they trust me - trust must work both ways). I am still in favor of a law forbidding anyone from collecting personal information off a driver's license, ID card, or CHL. It should be written in such a way as to allow you to waive your right to privacy but no one could deny you any benefit for not consenting to the collection.

Dragonfighter wrote:The AG's office got in contact with me and basically made a split decision. They said that they have no jurisdiction on the "policies" of a local municipality or "private" entities such as the Non-Profit State Fair of Texas Association. It was their opinion I (we) need to keep working through the local government to resolve violations occurring on their property.

However they said that the possible improper use of private information was evident enough to forward to the Consumer Protection Division for investigation and that they may be contacting me to further pursue that issue.

So a mixed bag. I would have thought such a blatant violation of State Law by the City of Dallas (albeit by complicity) would have warranted a stronger response.

Not to sidetrack the question here, but Texas really does have a fairly weak AG. He is very powerful in certain ways (such as his interpretation of the law carrying the weight of the law) that he has been authorized to act in, but he is very limited in many ways (such as only being able to investigate certain things or where asked by certain people).

I think his answer is very good for us. He is basically agreeing that there is a problem and doing what he can legally do to help.

gemini wrote:GC 411.205 Displaying License; If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

I've stated this before; it's just as important what is NOT in the law as what is...... The law does NOT require you to
display your DL or CHL to anyone other than a magistrate or peace officer on demand. To save time and band width
I'll refrain from expounding on this right now. I fully understand ID to cash a check at a private business etc.......
We're talking CHL here.

The last sentence here is why i think they can ask and require you to show them your CHL. I agree that they cannot stop you from carrying, but it is incumbent on you to prove your authority to carry. Say that three people, all armed, walk up to the gate. The first is an off duty cop, the second is a CHL, and the third is a person who is unlawfully carrying. The first wants to get in and the wand beeps. He has to show his ID to prove he can legally carry. he does and is let in. The second is asked and claims to have a CHL. He is asked for ID, and produces his CHL and is let in. The third is asked for ID and claims to also have a CHL but refuses to produce it. Should he be let in?

So, as I see it, since it is not forbidden, it is legal for a private person or a governmental official other than a peace officer to demand to see a CHL in order to allow you to carry where you are legally entitled to. this is just like requiring ID to cash a check. This does not necessarily give them the authority to copy any information but they can require you to prove you are entitled to the benefit the CHL gives you.

So, we need to get a law passed banning anyone from collecting the personal information in order to allow a CHL to carry on their premises. Now that I think about it, wasn't Houston (or Harris County) doing this also when they required you to sign in and get a red badge to visit city buildings?

SlowDave wrote:Does this mean that any private enterprise could require you to provide your DL, CHL, and a major credit card number be recorded before you are allowed entry? Okay, so no one would go. But if this business was temporarily operating on gov't owned property, then would that still be allowed? If there is no law (or understanding) protecting our private information, then there should be.

Yes, I think this is exactly the current state of the law. Any private business could require this and more to enter their business. Obviously, if they got too personal, no one would go and they would go out of business.

But if you think of it, this already happens in many places. There are many organizations that rent convention facilities from the government on a regular basis. Many of them require you to be a member of the organization to enter the show. And, to be an organization member, you need to give them that information. So, it may very well be a currently legal situation. I am not saying it is legal, just that it might be and I find no law forbidding this collection of data. And since there is no law forbidding it, we generally operate on the principle of what i snot forbidden is allowed.

Now, there was the point about the city and county being forbidden from making a registry. This might count as one and thus be illegal. I am not sure on how that one would play out in court. I can see it going either way, especially depending on the judge.

But suppose we take it down one step. The posted State Fair policy says your license will be examined. Would it be a legal policy to require you to show the CHL to a gate guard for examination, if he did not write anything down? I certainly think so, and I think a court would find that reasonable. The law does not say you cannot show the CHL to anyone else, just when you must show it. And if you want to carry in with a CHL when no one else could, I can see the court saying the need for your to verify your authority to carry was reaosnable. The writing of the information down is where I think they crossed the line.

It may be legal, but right and wrong have almost nothing to do with legality.

Brazos wrote:We should diligently oppose ALL attempts to erode our right to carry. Every one of them.

I agree with you that this is an attempt to infringe on our rights and we should fight it. I fully support everyone on this page and joining in this fight. I am also writing tot he State Fair Corporate headquarters to complain.

I am just pointing out that even though it is an infringement, it may very well be one the law currently allows. And, even if we win this fight this year, we need to get the TSRA involved and a law written to permanently end this fight against anyone else who tries the same idea. I can think of a few who would try this if they had thought of it (or hear of it) and will not back down from the fight.

First, I want to say I support all of your efforts in edning this. I do not believe the State Fair Association has the right to collect this information against your will.

But, I do want to point out that they may be within their legal authority. They cannot deny you entrance to the fair because you are carrying, but they may (and I emphasize may, indicating possibility not certainty) be able to deny you entrance for failure to provide them with your name and address and CHL info. There is nothing in the law that I can find that forbids this collection of data or a 30.05 warning for criminal trespass for failure to cooperate.

The law on confidentiality only applies to DPS releasing the information. It does not pertain to the private organizations or you releasing the information. This is how it should be, with restrictions on what the government can do but not on individuals or businesses. Since State Fair of Texas is a private non-profit corporation that receives no government funding (according to their web site), the rules on the government should not apply to it.

So, how can they justify the 30.05 warning? Well, entry into a private event is always by some type of contract. In this case, part of the contract is that you provide them with certain information IF you are carrying a weapon by using a CHL (I wonder if they are copying down off duty cops info too). This may be the same under the law as requiring you to pay a fee for an entry ticket.

I disagree with them, but I can see where they could make a legal argument that would survive an initial court exam. This means we could be in for a fight that will not be resolved this year. I think that we need to get TSRA to start working on a permanent solution by drafting a bill that does make this information totally confidential.