TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:Effective notice - the following people are designated as volunteer safety members and are authorized to carry weapons on the church premises. Under the law the church can successfully argue that you were given notice that you could not carry by not being selected as a volunteer.

30.06 is not JUST a sign.

No, 30.06 not just a sign, but the absence of being dubbed a member of a voluntary safety team is no where near effective notice of anything, it's the absence of both. What's at issue is that currently a voluntary safety team member falls under occupational code that prohibits carrying a firearm without certification. Removing that so organized safety teams are allowed to carry under the authority of a CHL doesn't impact other CHL holders without undesirable changes to 46.035.

Or wait, I may be misreading and what you're saying is those undesirable changes to 46.035 might create that situation? If so, never mind. And if so, I still don't think it serves as effective notice, and effective notice wouldn't be needed because it would make carry in a church unlawful for a CHL holder unless you have been dubbed a member of a safety team.

JKTex wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Effective notice - the following people are designated as volunteer safety members and are authorized to carry weapons on the church premises. Under the law the church can successfully argue that you were given notice that you could not carry by not being selected as a volunteer.

30.06 is not JUST a sign.

No, 30.06 not just a sign, but the absence of being dubbed a member of a voluntary safety team is no where near effective notice of anything, it's the absence of both. What's at issue is that currently a voluntary safety team member falls under occupational code that prohibits carrying a firearm without certification. Removing that so organized safety teams are allowed to carry under the authority of a CHL doesn't impact other CHL holders without undesirable changes to 46.035.

Or wait, I may be misreading and what you're saying is those undesirable changes to 46.035 might create that situation? If so, never mind. And if so, I still don't think it serves as effective notice, and effective notice wouldn't be needed because it would make carry in a church unlawful for a CHL holder unless you have been dubbed a member of a safety team.

What I'm saying is that an aggressive DA in a liberal county could certainly pursue the case on that basis, and I wouldn't bet on the odds of his case failing. Ambiguous laws often have unintended consequences.

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Effective notice - the following people are designated as volunteer safety members and are authorized to carry weapons on the church premises. Under the law the church can successfully argue that you were given notice that you could not carry by not being selected as a volunteer.

30.06 is not JUST a sign.

No, 30.06 not just a sign, but the absence of being dubbed a member of a voluntary safety team is no where near effective notice of anything, it's the absence of both. What's at issue is that currently a voluntary safety team member falls under occupational code that prohibits carrying a firearm without certification. Removing that so organized safety teams are allowed to carry under the authority of a CHL doesn't impact other CHL holders without undesirable changes to 46.035.

Or wait, I may be misreading and what you're saying is those undesirable changes to 46.035 might create that situation? If so, never mind. And if so, I still don't think it serves as effective notice, and effective notice wouldn't be needed because it would make carry in a church unlawful for a CHL holder unless you have been dubbed a member of a safety team.

What I'm saying is that an aggressive DA in a liberal county could certainly pursue the case on that basis, and I wouldn't bet on the odds of his case failing. Ambiguous laws often have unintended consequences.

I still don't know if I misunderstood what you meant. But I don't think there's really any ambiguity in the changes that make the bill bad.

I don't think safety is the key word, I think security is. When you start talking about security teams then the law applies. Safety people help little ladies out to their cars insuring they don't trip and fall. They mop up spilled water on the floor. The safety people can make the congregation "feel safe." When you add the word security you open a completely different book, because you then have phrases like "Security Officers."

MeMelYup wrote:I don't think safety is the key word, I think security is. When you start talking about security teams then the law applies. Safety people help little ladies out to their cars insuring they don't trip and fall. They mop up spilled water on the floor. The safety people can make the congregation "feel safe." When you add the word security you open a completely different book, because you then have phrases like "Security Officers."

It's not a word, it's a function. As long as they do not formally for a person or group for that function, there's no problem. But in some cases, organization is good, so we need this bill.