"Florida will become like Texas"

[sjfcontrol]

OK - maybe I am just clueless - but what cities and/or counties in Texas have their own set of 'laws' that control weapons or ammunition? I've never noticed any difference in any of the cities or counties I've been in over the past 20+ years in Texas.

Grapevine and Plano. According to reports, both have their own version of 30.06 instead of obeying the Texas one.

But they aren't enforceable. Texas has a "preemption" law prohibiting municipalities from adopting regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies. See LGC 229.001 (page 55 of the CHL-16 booklet).

I don't know about Plano, but the Grapevine reference is to the fact that the Grapevine PD will enforce the non-compliant signs at the Grapevine Mills Mall. There isn't literally a Grapevine version of 30.06, it's just the erroneous enforcement of a non-compliant sign.

Oh, and I'm sure the Plano reference was to the invalid 30.06 signs posted at public school parking lots.

[The Annoyed Man]

OK - maybe I am just clueless - but what cities and/or counties in Texas have their own set of 'laws' that control weapons or ammunition? I've never noticed any difference in any of the cities or counties I've been in over the past 20+ years in Texas.

Grapevine and Plano. According to reports, both have their own version of 30.06 instead of obeying the Texas one.

But they aren't enforceable. Texas has a "preemption" law prohibiting municipalities from adopting regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies. See LGC 229.001 (page 55 of the CHL-16 booklet).

I don't know about Plano, but the Grapevine reference is to the fact that the Grapevine PD will enforce the non-compliant signs at the Grapevine Mills Mall. There isn't literally a Grapevine version of 30.06, it's just the erroneous enforcement of a non-compliant sign.

It's the erroneous STATEMENT of enforcement of non-compliant signs. So far as anyone knows, nobody has ever been arrested for it.
Nevertheless, the State laws overrule local laws. (But we need a Florida-style law where we can sue the lawmakers personally for invalid laws! )

I'm not saying it's not erroneous. It is definitely erroneous. I actually know both the chief and the assistant chief of the Grapevine PD...not real well, but I do know them both. I was initially surprised when I heard about this, because neither of them on the surface appear to be "gun-grabber" types. Grapevine is a pretty conservative town, and generally speaking, I think the town's leadership reflects that conservatism. However, it is also a town that does whatever it can to attract businesses and the tourist industry. I think that they are willing to enforce non-compliant signs if it will keep a major contributor to the tax base happy, as long as those signs are almost compliant. In other words, I don't think they would enforce it if they were simple "gunbusters" signs, but even those signs are not strictly compliant, they probably think they are close enough to compliant to enforce. I don't particularly like that, but it's a fact of life here; and this city is very well funded by its corporate tax base. That means plenty of services to the local residents, such as clean streets in good repair, regular and frequent trash pickups, nice parks, etc., etc.

Here's what they are counting on.... I'm sure they know that the signs aren't 100% perfect. I'm sure they know that a decision to prosecute a "violator" would likely go down in flames. I'm sure they know that you won't beat the ride, but you will beat the time. I'm sure they also know that 99.9% of CHLs are not willing to spend the $100K it will take to prove their innocence. So, they have made a choice NOT to educate the mall ownership about proper signage, and they are probably aware that someone charged with trespassing under 30.06 will beat the rap; they get to leave the mall ownership with the illusion that CHLs are banned from the mall, and they get to not throw a law-abiding CHLer into prison. In other words, they've made a deal with the devil. Why? Tax revenue. Follow the money.

I'm not excusing any of this. I'm just explaining it.

[sjfcontrol]

I'm not saying it's not erroneous. It is definitely erroneous. I actually know both the chief and the assistant chief of the Grapevine PD...not real well, but I do know them both. I was initially surprised when I heard about this, because neither of them on the surface appear to be "gun-grabber" types. Grapevine is a pretty conservative town, and generally speaking, I think the town's leadership reflects that conservatism. However, it is also a town that does whatever it can to attract businesses and the tourist industry. I think that they are willing to enforce non-compliant signs if it will keep a major contributor to the tax base happy, as long as those signs are almost compliant. In other words, I don't think they would enforce it if they were simple "gunbusters" signs, but even those signs are not strictly compliant, they probably think they are close enough to compliant to enforce. I don't particularly like that, but it's a fact of life here; and this city is very well funded by its corporate tax base. That means plenty of services to the local residents, such as clean streets in good repair, regular and frequent trash pickups, nice parks, etc., etc.

Here's what they are counting on.... I'm sure they know that the signs aren't 100% perfect. I'm sure they know that a decision to prosecute a "violator" would likely go down in flames. I'm sure they know that you won't beat the ride, but you will beat the time. I'm sure they also know that 99.9% of CHLs are not willing to spend the $100K it will take to prove their innocence. So, they have made a choice NOT to educate the mall ownership about proper signage, and they are probably aware that someone charged with trespassing under 30.06 will beat the rap; they get to leave the mall ownership with the illusion that CHLs are banned from the mall, and they get to not throw a law-abiding CHLer into prison. In other words, they've made a deal with the devil. Why? Tax revenue. Follow the money.

I'm not excusing any of this. I'm just explaining it.

TAM -- I think we are in general agreement here. I wasn't taking exception to your use of "erroneous", but to your use of "Enforcement". They have merely STATED that they will enforce the signs, but they haven't actually arrested anybody for it.

As for your second paragraph, I don't believe it would cost anywhere near $100K to defend yourself if arrested -- probably more like $100, if anything at all. Before you could run up that kind of money, you'd not only have to be arrested, but charged and taken to trial. And as the laws are quite clear as to what constitutes legal notice, it is quite unlikely that any DA would prosecute. (He'd ruin his conviction rate.) And if he did, it "should" be a simple matter for your lawyer to get the charges dropped. You might spend a night in jail, but that's free!

Also, once the smoke has cleared, the CHL holder (victim) would be open to pursue a 1983 (?) civil rights lawsuit for false arrest, as they (the popo) have been notified that the signs are not valid.

As to your explanation as to their motives, sounds logical to me...

[Dave2]

(But we need a Florida-style law where we can sue the lawmakers personally for invalid laws! )

The federal level needs that, too. I bet they'd simplify the laws a lot if they were held accountable for not understanding and know what's in them.

[VoiceofReason]

Councilman David Landfair asked Dannheisser if Florida will become like Texas, "Where there are guns everywhere."

"We're there, come Oct. 1," Dannheisser said.

Um, last I checked, Florida had TWICE the number of concealed licensees as Texas...

To me the funniest part was, “Councilman David Landfair asked Dannheisser if Florida will become like Texas, "Where there are guns everywhere."

"We're there, come Oct. 1," Dannheisser said.”

Florida will never “become like Texas”.

Texas is what other states want to be like when they grow up.

[tacticool]

OK - maybe I am just clueless - but what cities and/or counties in Texas have their own set of 'laws' that control weapons or ammunition? I've never noticed any difference in any of the cities or counties I've been in over the past 20+ years in Texas.

Grapevine and Plano. According to reports, both have their own version of 30.06 instead of obeying the Texas one.

But they aren't enforceable. Texas has a "preemption" law prohibiting municipalities from adopting regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies. See LGC 229.001 (page 55 of the CHL-16 booklet).

Florida also had a "preemption" law. It passed more than 20 years ago.

790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.

(1) PREEMPTION. Except as expressly provided by general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or regulations relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances are hereby declared null and void. This subsection shall not affect zoning ordinances which encompass firearms businesses along with other businesses. Zoning ordinances which are designed for the purpose of restricting or prohibiting the sale, purchase, transfer, or manufacture of firearms or ammunition as a method of regulating firearms or ammunition are in conflict with this subsection and are prohibited.

This new law does not repeal it. It strengthens it by giving citizens a way to fight back. How long would the signs in Plano would stay up if the school administrators were personally sued for six figures and the settlement would come out of their pockets. Same with cops saying they will ignore the 30.06 law and arrest people who are complying with the 30.06 law.

[JJVP]

OK - maybe I am just clueless - but what cities and/or counties in Texas have their own set of 'laws' that control weapons or ammunition? I've never noticed any difference in any of the cities or counties I've been in over the past 20+ years in Texas.

I'll give you two I have run into. About a year ago my wife had day surgery at a clinic/hospital in Pasadena. On the front door they had a sign which prohibited concealed carry, even for CHL's based on some local Pasadena ordinance. I, just ignored it and walked right in carrying.

Another is at Houston Intercontinental Airport. Inside the elevators, the ones from the parking lot to the departure/arrival areas have a sign, also indicating the prohibition of concealed carry, even for CHL's based on some Harris county law. Again, every time I have been to the airport to pickup or take someone I carry ignoring the signs.

I am sure there are many other places with local laws which attempt to regulate concealed carry.

[Pyrat]

I spend a lot of time in Florida and I have attended the FL CHL training. I would agree, it would be nice if Texas CHL law was more like Florida's. I do like Texas' training procedures more though. Florida has about three hours of training and a familiarization shoot. At my shoot in FL I was the only one not using a .22 and had substantially better groups than my fellow students. I do kind of like knowing my fellow CHL'ers can hit their intended target, or at least reduce peripheral damage.

[apostate]

I do kind of like knowing my fellow CHL'ers can hit their intended target, or at least reduce peripheral damage.

That may be, but IMHO the current CHL shooting test with a 70% passing score does little to ensure that.

[Pyrat]

It does more than the one in Florida.

[apostate]

That may be, although I can't find any evidence, much less statistically significant evidence, to support that theory. Even states with constitutional carry don't seem to have more problems than Texas WRT armed citizens missing their intended target and hitting random bystanders.

In any event, putting some teeth in preemption was a brilliant idea.