TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

Syntyr wrote:

Liberty wrote:
My suggestion to compare Arizona to Texas though wasn't to imply that it should be easier to pass the implementation, but rather we that we should be able to use data from Arizona to judge the success or failure of open carry. This might not be the time to pass Constitutional Carry, but it is the time to start making the case for it.

Liberty,

Totally agree on the validity of your statement. But the problem is the very statement itself requires that legislatures and their constituents use logic and think about an issue instead of using their feels. Unfortunately a majority of people nowadays rely on their feelings and even mentioning the word gun evoks a fight or flight response in them. Dont know how we get past it but I wish we could...

. . . Most people in Texas are comfortable with an armed public, and this is why we have come so far.

This is exactly right. In order to pass any emotionally charged bill, it is first necessary to set the public at ease. We did that with concealed-carry, then the Motorist Protection act, then no renewal LTC classes, then 4 hr. classes instead of 10hr. classes, then open-carry. Each of those bills were met with opposition, but we were able to point to a good track record and no problems, thus eliminating the fears of most people even before the bills were filed. (Open-carry was a much harder battle because calming fears was a tough job as a result of counterproductive antics by others.)

Unlicensed carry is a possibility, but not in 2017. The Legislature and the general public equates unlicensed carry with in-your-face people and organizations and only time will change opinions. How much time will depend largely on whether some people and organizations have learned anything from their failures.

Chas.

nlyric wrote:There is absolutely no reason unlicensed carry can't pass in 2017.. Unless of course the NRA doesn't fully support it... Then it doesn't have much of a chance.

Is it your position that unlicensed carry will pass if the NRA supports it? If so, please give us the basis for that opinion.

Chas.

ScottDLS wrote:

Ruark wrote:

Jusme wrote:I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service.

According to a conversation I had with legislative staff, the concept of private property rights is the overwhelming, dominant factor in opposition to removing any business owner's right to post signage. It's not going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

Wonder how they got the parking lot bill . . .

1. It does not require an employer to allow guns in a building;
2. It places equal value on the private property of the employer (parking lot) and the private property of the employee (car);
3. Not allowing guns in the employee's car (their private property) disarms the employee from the time they leave home until they return after work.

ScottDLS wrote:and the exemption for off duty LEO past the Legislature's overwhelming respect for business owners?

Pretty much any pro-LEO bill is going to pass in Texas, unless it is absurd.

ScottDLS wrote:I like to believe that the State should play no role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of business owners who otherwise invite you on their property by opening for business. So you have every right to put up a sign excluding red t shirts on your business, however the State has no obligation to arrest those that ignore it before you ask them to leave...

You refute your own stated position. You clearly do want the state to "play a role in criminally enforcing the private prejudices of the business owners . . ." You want the state to arrest and prosecute anyone who does not leave private property when told to do so. You would expressly allow a property owner to tell someone to leave specifically because they have a gun. It's only the method of of delivering the message that you want to change. You want to allow a person who knows that guns are not welcome (saw the 30.06 sign) to enter property anyway and force the owner to confront the armed trespasser. You won't sell that argument to many people.

As I've said many times, I support not allowing businesses to prohibit Licensees from carrying concealed handguns. However, I won't push the issue because it has no support and pushing it would pit legislative friends against friends and hurt our overall effort. (I would note that my preferred change would not force a confrontation between the business owner and the Licensee as would yours.)

Chas.

JALLEN wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Veterans get the initial and all renewal licenses for $25 while those age 60 yrs and over get a 50% reduction. The revenue generated by licensee fees is well below the $140 initial license fee and it's probably below the $70 renewal fee.



Chas.

When did the Vet deal change? When I applied 3 years ago, just arrived from CA, I was both a Vet and a senior. I got a 50% discount either way. I remember asking if I could take both, 50% of 100% as a Vet (I was a Vet first), and 50% of 50% as a senior.

No deal, they said.

2013.

Chas.

There will be a serious push to reduce the license fee in 2017. This is actually coming from some key folks on the Legislature without much prodding. I haven't heard any figures yet, but a majority realize it should be reduced.

As Joe817 noted, there are reductions for indigent folks, but there are others also. Military get the license for free as do people who have been discharged for a year or less. Veterans get the initial and all renewal licenses for $25 while those age 60 yrs and over get a 50% reduction. The revenue generated by licensee fees is well below the $140 initial license fee and it's probably below the $70 renewal fee.

DPS must pay the FBI $23 for every fingerprint background check run on applicants. This is a significant cost to DPS that should be removed in my opinion.

I haven't heard any specific fee mentioned, but I think it will be down to $100 or less, perhaps much less.

Chas.

It's not a matter of whether a license should be required to carry a gun. The question is what can get passed in 2017; unlicensed carry cannot. Therefore, we work on what can pass.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:4. Rendering 30.06/30.07 signs is neither desirable nor possible. Private property rights folks, most of whom are also strong Second Amendment supporters, would oppose it in huge numbers. Forcing property owners to confront people carrying handguns rather than allowing them to post enforceable signs is a concept that very few people support.

I'd like to see some of the teeth taken out of 30.06/07... Maybe one of these would work?

1. Make violations an infraction. A $25 ticket, or something similar. Maybe make that applicable to 30.06 only and leave 30.07 as is. Leave the trespass after being asked to leave stuff as-is also.?

2. Tennessee did this.... Tennessee Businesses That Disarm Concealed Carry Permit Holders Now Liable for Their Safety

3. ??

The problem with trying to change 30.06/30.07 further is that, the argument would essentially be "change the law so I can ignore a property owner's wishes and carry my gun anyway." We can play word games, but that's the argument and it will find very little support even among gun owners.

We were able to lower the offense to a Class C to prevent a more serious penalty for people who honestly missed a 30.06 or 30.07 sign. If they leave when asked to leave, that fact tends to support the argument that entry was by mistake. If they refuse to leave, then it's a Class A Misdemeanor.

Chas.

1. We do not have a super majority in the Senate. That's why we had to change Senate rules to allow bills to reach the floor for debate with only 19 votes.
2. Party Platforms don't matter in the least; they are routinely ignored. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
3. Unlicensed carry will not pass in 2017. Spending one dime of political capital on it would hurt the effort to promote bills that can pass. It will be interesting to see if any of the open-carry organizations even try next session.
4. Rendering 30.06/30.07 signs is neither desirable nor possible. Private property rights folks, most of whom are also strong Second Amendment supporters, would oppose it in huge numbers. Forcing property owners to confront people carrying handguns rather than allowing them to post enforceable signs is a concept that very few people support.
5. Removing the duty to disclose your LTC to a LEO was overwhelmingly opposed in 2009 and that's why we removed all penalties by adding that language to the DPS sunset bill.

Chas.

Unlicensed open-carry will not pass in 2017 and it may not even be filed. Open-carry groups will focus on NRA/TSRA bills and issues trying to once again take credit for bills that we passed last session and that we will pass in 2017. They did that at the end of 2015 and they will do so again in 2017. They show up at a public hearing on NRA/TSRA bills, testify in support, then claim they got the bills passed. Thankfully, only the folks in their echo chamber buy that garbage.

Removal of off-limits areas for LTCs should be the single flagship bill in 2017 and if it is not, then a great disservice has been inflicted on the most law-abiding of Texans. The political climate is perfect to see the bill pass. Local officials are blatantly ignoring Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 (SB273), playing games with lame excuses that sound like they came from a five year old, and risking taxpayer money while doing so.

So-called "gun free zones" are a magnet for criminals whether they come to commit mass murder or to rape or rob a lone victim. With the increased threat of attacks by terrorists, the need to remove unnecessary off-limits areas is greater now than in the past. Even Harvard agrees that "gun free zones" are a magnet for violent criminals.

I don't care if we pass nothing else -- remove off-limits killing zones now!!!

Chas.