TexasCHLforum.com

My top four are the same as your top four Charles.

Chose 4 of them but I think this is my number 1:

Repeal of all off-limits areas for Texas CHLs (excluding federal laws) [HB3218 in 2013];

nightmare69 wrote:Who would be responsible for enforcing and writing citations to government agencies who post 30.06 if HB508 does pass?

Anyone?

nightmare69 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:Who would be responsible for enforcing and writing citations to government agencies who post 30.06 if HB508 does pass?

Anyone?

That depends on how the bill is written. There won't be any citations, there will be lawsuits. My version allows the AG to do it and if the AG does not file suit within a certain time frame, then any CHL can do so. If/when the CHL wins, they get all of their attorney fees and other costs of litigation reimbursed by the offending governmental entity.

Chas.

Apparently the DPS is requiring full fingerprint scans now for driver's licenses: http://www.dallasnews.com/investigation ... prints.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't particularly agree with them doing that, but if they're able to reuse driver's license photos for CHL's they should be able to reuse fingerprints for CHL's.

First of all and to echo others before me, thank you Charles for: A) hosting a forum where we can discuss these issues; B) Inquiring as to what our wishes are for the upcoming legislative session; C) keeping us informed of the current political climate; and D) the hard work you and your associates have put in to further the liberties of all Texans. I truly and sincerely appreciate it.

I look forward to 2015 and to answer the "Calls to Action"!

srothstein wrote:

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for?

We will never be done fighting until Chapter 46 is repealed, chapter 49 doesn't make carrying and scaring people a crime, and local CLEOs must sign ALL requests for federal class III paperwork that meets the requirements.

And then we continue the fight for federal changes, until GCA of 68 and NFA Act of 34 are both repealed.

And then we continue the fight for public opinion. Then, maybe, we can relax a little bit.

Seriously, those are my goals. I just see us taking it in baby steps a little at a time and making constant steady progress. So, the question of what to fight for each session and the order to fight in is more of a tactical question to keep making the improvement than a question of where we stop.

+1. We are making progress each session but the amount of change needed vs. the rate is my concern. Hopefully Lt. Gov. Patrick will remove the blocker bill & allow majority rule. Finding out the chairmen in both bodies will also be important.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:+1. We are making progress each session but the amount of change needed vs. the rate is my concern. Hopefully Lt. Gov. Patrick will remove the blocker bill & allow majority rule. Finding out the chairmen in both bodies will also be important.

As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

gsansing wrote:As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

Except open carry, per Charles, would not pass if it were tied to 30.06. I wouldn't want it to either. Why change 30.06 and give people a chance to water it down in the process. If our choice was open carried tied to 30.06 or no open carry, I'd choose no open carry.

CleverNickname wrote:I don't particularly agree with them doing that, but if they're able to reuse driver's license photos for CHL's they should be able to reuse fingerprints for CHL's.

Every time I see someone saying this, it bothers me. It indicates that you do not understand the purpose of the fingerprints. I am not supporting or opposing the use of fingerprints or the need for them, but explaining why reusing them is not possible.

The purpose of fingerprints for a license are to verify that you are indeed the person who the license is intended fro (the name and prints should match). If DPS was to allow someone to get a new license without being fingerprinted, it would set up identity theft with me getting your name on my new CHL. This is true whether the license is you CHL, DL, Engineer, appraiser, police, or security guard license. This also is why new prints are not really necessary for renewals. The assumption is that the person has already been verified.

And yes, this system is based on the assumption that the first time you get fingerprinted, you are telling the truth about your identity. The fingerprints will forever be tied to that name. I have had at least one case where the first time a suspect had been arrested, he used an alias. when I arrested him, he kept trying to tell me it was an alias and give me his real name. The real name was listed as an alias on his records, so it did not matter to me.

srothstein wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:I don't particularly agree with them doing that, but if they're able to reuse driver's license photos for CHL's they should be able to reuse fingerprints for CHL's.

Every time I see someone saying this, it bothers me. It indicates that you do not understand the purpose of the fingerprints. I am not supporting or opposing the use of fingerprints or the need for them, but explaining why reusing them is not possible.

The purpose of fingerprints for a license are to verify that you are indeed the person who the license is intended fro (the name and prints should match). If DPS was to allow someone to get a new license without being fingerprinted, it would set up identity theft with me getting your name on my new CHL. This is true whether the license is you CHL, DL, Engineer, appraiser, police, or security guard license. This also is why new prints are not really necessary for renewals. The assumption is that the person has already been verified.

And yes, this system is based on the assumption that the first time you get fingerprinted, you are telling the truth about your identity. The fingerprints will forever be tied to that name. I have had at least one case where the first time a suspect had been arrested, he used an alias. when I arrested him, he kept trying to tell me it was an alias and give me his real name. The real name was listed as an alias on his records, so it did not matter to me.

Thanks srothstein, this is good to know!

gsansing wrote:So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

Remove the restrictions on concealed carry for schools, sports, bars, and voting.

Wes wrote:

gsansing wrote:As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

Except open carry, per Charles, would not pass if it were tied to 30.06. I wouldn't want it to either. Why change 30.06 and give people a chance to water it down in the process. If our choice was open carried tied to 30.06 or no open carry, I'd choose no open carry.

Imagine a future where open carry passes and the 30.06 sign still only applies to CCW....

I think the fear is that businesses would see people open carrying, not like it, and then find out that hey, there's this 30.06 sign that will prevent people from carrying guns on their property. Well, no, the 30.06 sign would only prevent legal CCW and people will have been doing it for a long time before open carry. But right now CCW is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and the fear is that open carry will cause more 30.06 postings even if posting them doesn't do anything legally to stop open carry.

CleverNickname wrote:Imagine a future where open carry passes and the 30.06 sign still only applies to CCW....

That's not so different from what we have now. The 30.06 sign has no bearing on OC rifles and MPA handguns.

CleverNickname wrote:I think the fear is that businesses would see people open carrying, not like it, and then find out that hey, there's this 30.06 sign that will prevent people from carrying guns on their property. Well, no, the 30.06 sign would only prevent legal CCW and people will have been doing it for a long time before open carry. But right now CCW is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and the fear is that open carry will cause more 30.06 postings even if posting them doesn't do anything legally to stop open carry.

Also not so different from what we have now, except a holstered handgun without a cover garment gets a lot less attention than a rifle on a sling, especially one of those tactical bungee slings.