TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Dexdahex wrote:All I want is to be able to carry everywhere except jail, police stations, courts that's about it...

We can legaly carry in police stations

But in practice you will see police stations with signs prohibiting such. I have one at the constable office nearby my house (Harris County - near Cypresswood and Stuebner Airline).

I am not real thrilled about testing their sign out...

Is there by chance a JP court in or attached to the constable office.

I believe there is on the other end of the building.

I want to see legislation that prohibits PUBLIC employers from preventing employees from carrying a concealed firearm. A city can not by law prevent a CHL holder from entering a public building with a concealed firearm but the City has the right to fire the secretary that the CHL holder is talking to while armed from having a firearm in her purse? That is absolutely absurd! I dont believe that it will take much political capital to change.

When does the TSRA leadership sit down and outline the legislative agenda for the next session and is this meeting open to all TSRA members?

Purplehood wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Dexdahex wrote:All I want is to be able to carry everywhere except jail, police stations, courts that's about it...

We can legaly carry in police stations

But in practice you will see police stations with signs prohibiting such. I have one at the constable office nearby my house (Harris County - near Cypresswood and Stuebner Airline).

I am not real thrilled about testing their sign out...

Isn't that building the same building that houses the tax office and court rooms? I've been there to renew my vehicle registration and the doors that face east toward the Barbara Bush Library are the entrances to the court room area.

Probably. I haven't done a thorough exploration. I merely noted the sign in the cop-shop while going into the vehicle registration office. I avoid the other end.

Guess it didn't pass, 58-39

ninjamedic2293 wrote:I want to see legislation that prohibits PUBLIC employers from preventing employees from carrying a concealed firearm. A city can not by law prevent a CHL holder from entering a public building with a concealed firearm but the City has the right to fire the secretary that the CHL holder is talking to while armed from having a firearm in her purse? That is absolutely absurd! I dont believe that it will take much political capital to change.

That would include staff at public universities, would it not?

TxFig wrote:A law defining what SCHOOL is - limiting it's meaning to PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

It makes more sense to fix the problem by getting rid of 46.03 a1, a2, and a4, and all of 46.035.

The 46.035 rules really make no sense. I can carry a 12ga shotgun in those places but not a 38 revolver?

pdubyoo wrote:I agree with #2 ~ #8 as well.

Let me add a couple...

#9 - as defined by TxFig
#10 - Start with enforcement of the laws already on the books regarding CHL processing time, but applying penalties when the processing time extends beyond the processing time window without justification.
#11 - Legislation prohibiting the activity of "blocking" a bill from making it to the floor for a vote (ie. parking lot & campus carry), based on partisan politics. This equates to abuse of power and position by the folks on the calendars committee.

I'm sure more will come to mind.

OK...another one came to mind. How about severe penalties for legislators that intentionally use grossly false data or mis-represent the facts, for the purpose of passing or failing legislation. ie...the yahoos in the senate that used that rediculously false report about TX CHLers.

Of course, this would lead to DC and/or Austin being emptied. We'd have to start almost completely from scratch. The 2010 elections would be HUGE. But, we all know that the legislators would never pass anything like that. It would be like signing their own death sentence.

pdubyoo wrote:
OK...another one came to mind. How about severe penalties for legislators that intentionally use grossly false data or mis-represent the facts, for the purpose of passing or failing legislation. ie...the yahoos in the senate that used that rediculously false report about TX CHLers.

Of course, this would lead to DC and/or Austin being emptied. We'd have to start almost completely from scratch. The 2010 elections would be HUGE. But, we all know that the legislators would never pass anything like that. It would be like signing their own death sentence.

Would purging DC and Austin of dirty politicians be such a bad thing? That's on my wish list...

About #1 Sales tax I think a legitimate argument is that in order to exercise the Second Amendment, unlike any other, a material objects must exist to exercise the 2A. So, since we have no other choice but to purchase "arms" to exercise our rights under the Second Amendment I think it is "a taxing of a civil right".

The "arm" is the Second Amendment and without them there is no "right to bear arms". That is why the gun-control nuts want gun bans and ammo bans and non-sporting arms bans and on and on. To tax the "arm" is to tax the rights because they are one in the same. That includes anything that can be defined as an "arm". Is a steak knife an arm...no. Is a hunting knife or tactical knife...yes. Is a baseball bat...no. Is an ASP Baton...yes. If it is made for purposes under the 2A it is not taxable in my view.

Let the governments collect taxes on the raw materials but not on our rights. It is time we free our minds from justifying government control over our civil rights. That is my opinion.

shootthesheet wrote:About #1 Sales tax I think a legitimate argument is that in order to exercise the Second Amendment, unlike any other, a material objects must exist to exercise the 2A. So, since we have no other choice but to purchase "arms" to exercise our rights under the Second Amendment I think it is "a taxing of a civil right".

The "arm" is the Second Amendment and without them there is no "right to bear arms". That is why the gun-control nuts want gun bans and ammo bans and non-sporting arms bans and on and on. To tax the "arm" is to tax the rights because they are one in the same. That includes anything that can be defined as an "arm". Is a steak knife an arm...no. Is a hunting knife or tactical knife...yes. Is a baseball bat...no. Is an ASP Baton...yes. If it is made for purposes under the 2A it is not taxable in my view.

Let the governments collect taxes on the raw materials but not on our rights. It is time we free our minds from justifying government control over our civil rights. That is my opinion.

If we could get the 2A recognized as an inherent right and not requiring the blessing of the 14th Amendment, than I might agree with you.

So that means the sales tax that Barnes and Noble collects is "taxing a civil right" too.

Purple, none of the others are at the state level either if I recall correctly.

bdickens, a book in not required to exercise the freedom of speech. As well, the press at one time was a person who stood in the town square and told people what the news was. So, no object is really required to exercise the freedom of speech or press.

The entire reason for my post was that we should not accept hostile actions by any government toward liberty or our pursuit of happiness. Burdensome taxation is a hindrance to all of our rights. What could any of us do with an extra 20% or so of our income that was not going to fund insane leftists social engineering programs? And so no one misunderstands me, we are taxed on everything we buy whether it is called a tax or not or paid directly by us or paid by a company and passed on to us thru higher prices.

We are being taxed two and more times because our governments tax the company that makes a product and a retailer to buy it and then us as the end buyer. Every time that product changes hands tax is added to it so we have to pay higher prices. The problem America has is from bloated governments imposing insane taxes so they can grow bigger and take even more of our rights and money. The state of Texas and local governments are as guilty as the federal government in that too. We cannot prosper until we restrict government to its original purpose.