TexasCHLforum.com

E10 wrote:What would happen if you remove the wristband? There's no law that would require you to continue to wear it.

What law says you have to wear it to begin with?

fickman wrote:Right or wrong, I would not recommend removing the wristband if open carrying in the event they might have trained other officers to use that as their primary threat assessment for visible guns.

Hasn't been a problem in any other state with open carry, why should I be different. Are some animals more equal than others?

Why should their rules be more restrictive than the State Capitol?
This is Alinsky tactics. Ridicule the opposition. LTC on public property is not the same as keeping underage kids from drinking in a dance hall.

BTP wrote:

E10 wrote:What would happen if you remove the wristband? There's no law that would require you to continue to wear it.

What law says you have to wear it to begin with?

Not directly, but Penal Code 30.05 says so. If you do not wear it, they can make you leave because you are not following their rules. The rules are legal in that there is nothing in the law forbidding this type of behavior (yet). The exemption in 30.05 for a CHL carrying would not apply if they said it was due to your refusing to follow their legal, "common-sense, safety related" rules.

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Sounds like a regulation to me...

srothstein wrote:

BTP wrote:

E10 wrote:What would happen if you remove the wristband? There's no law that would require you to continue to wear it.

What law says you have to wear it to begin with?

Not directly, but Penal Code 30.05 says so. If you do not wear it, they can make you leave because you are not following their rules. The rules are legal in that there is nothing in the law forbidding this type of behavior (yet). The exemption in 30.05 for a CHL carrying would not apply if they said it was due to your refusing to follow their legal, "common-sense, safety related" rules.

How about if they say you have to have it unloaded and zip tied....? Common sense safety rules, enforceable via 30.05

BTP wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:Wristband?!?!?!

What's next, a yellow Star of David?

That was my first thoughts.

What will they do if you cut it off. My second thought, just after saying "no, I will not put that on". Someone said they will not wear it and the Marshals said they couldn't come in then.

Seriously, this needs to go to the AG's office, and to every state rep and senator with constituents in any part of Fort Worth.

We'll get this fixed real frigging quick.

Didn't the City of Houston have red CHL "tags" for carry in city hall, back in late 90's early 2000's?

If 30.06 signs do not apply to government owned/leased property, how does 30.05 apply? How can you be asked to leave or where a tiara if the place is owned by the public? Too many in government forget that the people are the boss not them.

I thought it was statutorily forbidden to publicly identify CHL/LTC holders or did I imagine coming across that?

jason812 wrote:If 30.06 signs do not apply to government owned/leased property, how does 30.05 apply? How can you be asked to leave or where a tiara if the place is owned by the public? Too many in government forget that the people are the boss not them.

30.05 specifically states that it cannot be used to ban guns. The city absolutely cannot do what they are doing.

I think this may run afoul of the state preemption statute and the state constitution.

AJSully421 wrote:

jason812 wrote:If 30.06 signs do not apply to government owned/leased property, how does 30.05 apply? How can you be asked to leave or where a tiara if the place is owned by the public? Too many in government forget that the people are the boss not them.

30.05 specifically states that it cannot be used to ban guns. The city absolutely cannot do what they are doing.

The problem is they are not banning guns. Even though it may have a chilling effect on people carrying there. It's just another example of governmental bureaucrats skating around the law in order to accomplish their goals and objectives.

Not sure how to word this but it seems like what they are doing may not be illegal in and of itself. However, the intended result is contrary to the intent of the law. How to address this is the question in my mind.

This kind of stuff bothers me much more than things like a private property owner asking to see an LTC.

mojo84 wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

jason812 wrote:If 30.06 signs do not apply to government owned/leased property, how does 30.05 apply? How can you be asked to leave or where a tiara if the place is owned by the public? Too many in government forget that the people are the boss not them.

30.05 specifically states that it cannot be used to ban guns. The city absolutely cannot do what they are doing.

The problem is they are not banning guns. Even though it may have a chilling effect on people carrying there. It's just another example of governmental bureaucrats skating around the law in order to accomplish their goals and objectives.

Not sure how to word this but it seems like what they are doing may not be illegal in and of itself. However, the intended result is contrary to the intent of the law. How to address this is the question in my mind.

This kind of stuff bothers me much more than things like a private property owner asking to see an LTC.

Oh yeah, 100% agree!

Remember that this is the same city that has the zoo/day care/beer garden combination that bans guns. Is anyone really surprised at the wrist band?