TexasCHLforum.com

50-minute interview published on NRATV Youtube Channel

https://youtu.be/248LN1TiB40

The murderer didn't have an LTC. The FBI allowed him to buy guns. The legislators who voted for the 46.035 (b)(6) restriction on LTC helped make sure he had a soft target. Gun control doesn't stop the bad guys. It never has. It never will.

The only purpose of gun control is making evil safer for evil doers. It doesn't matter if the evil doers are common street criminals, religious fanatics, other nut jobs, or the government. Politicians who called for gun control in the wake of this mass murder and the Las Vegas mass murder showed their true colors. It's not about public safety because none of them called for truck control after the recent mass murder in New York. They only want to control guns so the good guys will be at a disadvantage.

deplorable wrote:The murderer didn't have an LTC. The FBI allowed him to buy guns. The legislators who voted for the 46.035 (b)(6) restriction on LTC helped make sure he had a soft target. Gun control doesn't stop the bad guys. It never has. It never will.

The only purpose of gun control is making evil safer for evil doers. It doesn't matter if the evil doers are common street criminals, religious fanatics, other nut jobs, or the government. Politicians who called for gun control in the wake of this mass murder and the Las Vegas mass murder showed their true colors. It's not about public safety because none of them called for truck control after the recent mass murder in New York. They only want to control guns so the good guys will be at a disadvantage.

common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

jmorris wrote:

allisji wrote:I'm sure that they always first assume that guns aren't allowed until they are told otherwise. That is the way that they have been brainwashed.

They stopped reading at 46.035 (b)(6). Common enough problem even among licence holders.

GeekwithaGun wrote:

deplorable wrote:The murderer didn't have an LTC. The FBI allowed him to buy guns. The legislators who voted for the 46.035 (b)(6) restriction on LTC helped make sure he had a soft target. Gun control doesn't stop the bad guys. It never has. It never will.

common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

life comes at you fast...

GeekwithaGun wrote:

deplorable wrote:The murderer didn't have an LTC. The FBI allowed him to buy guns. The legislators who voted for the 46.035 (b)(6) restriction on LTC helped make sure he had a soft target. Gun control doesn't stop the bad guys. It never has. It never will.

The only purpose of gun control is making evil safer for evil doers. It doesn't matter if the evil doers are common street criminals, religious fanatics, other nut jobs, or the government. Politicians who called for gun control in the wake of this mass murder and the Las Vegas mass murder showed their true colors. It's not about public safety because none of them called for truck control after the recent mass murder in New York. They only want to control guns so the good guys will be at a disadvantage.

common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

Common mistake to not understand that was added by a later legislature.

Common mistake to not understand the penalty for a 46.035 violation is greater than a 30.06 or 30.07 violation.

deplorable wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote:

deplorable wrote:The murderer didn't have an LTC. The FBI allowed him to buy guns. The legislators who voted for the 46.035 (b)(6) restriction on LTC helped make sure he had a soft target. Gun control doesn't stop the bad guys. It never has. It never will.

The only purpose of gun control is making evil safer for evil doers. It doesn't matter if the evil doers are common street criminals, religious fanatics, other nut jobs, or the government. Politicians who called for gun control in the wake of this mass murder and the Las Vegas mass murder showed their true colors. It's not about public safety because none of them called for truck control after the recent mass murder in New York. They only want to control guns so the good guys will be at a disadvantage.

common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

Common mistake to not understand that was added by a later legislature.

Welcome to the forum by the way... Have you been browsing long, or a new visitor?

GeekwithaGun wrote: common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

I saw AG Ken Paxton in an interview with Laura Ingraham say that it is confusing the way it is worded and too many people think they cannot carry in a church. I had to do a double take because at first I thought he said it was prohibited. He got a chance to expand and state if notice is given then it is prohibited, but the way the statue is worded needs to be addressed. I'm paraphrasing him, but good that the AG of the state recognizes that it is confusing to people.

Edited: Found interview on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC36id1t2T8 Paxton's part starts at 5:05 mark and then starts explanation at 6:10 about needing to make it more clear.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/09/us/texas- ... index.html

Bought animals for target practice.

SewTexas wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... b01350652b

this small town’s residents had just learned, mostly by word of mouth, the names of the people slain or wounded at the First Baptist Church, and the horror unleashed by a gunman was too fresh for anyone to process fully. But one thing was emphatically clear Monday: These Texans weren’t about to embrace gun control

that is all

it's really a good article, but... to me anyway...it sort of implies that guns are not allowed in church in Texas, did anyone else read the end of it that way?

Maybe it's you and maybe it isn't.

I didn't get that same vibe from the article. It sounded more like they were saying that they need to have at least one person armed and dedicated to watching out to be able to stop something like this. Very timely considering the recent law passed regarding this very issue.

rtschl wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote: common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

I saw AG Ken Paxton in an interview with Laura Ingraham say that it is confusing the way it is worded and too many people think they cannot carry in a church. I had to do a double take because at first I thought he said it was prohibited. He got a chance to expand and state if notice is given then it is prohibited, but the way the statue is worded needs to be addressed. I'm paraphrasing him, but good that the AG of the state recognizes that it is confusing to people.

Edited: Found interview on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC36id1t2T8 Paxton's part starts at 5:05 mark and then starts explanation at 6:10 about needing to make it more clear.

TPC §46.035(i) was created in 1997 as part of HB2909. We had to do it that way to achieve the goal. People constantly ask why we didn't just repeal the prohibition on churches, hospitals, etc. The simple answer is we didn't have the votes. The prohibition on carrying in churches, hospitals, etc. was necessary to pass SB60 in 1995 in order to create concealed carry. It was not politically feasible to delete those locations from the off-limits list only two years later. Heck, look how long I've been pushing to repeal all off-limits areas!

There is nothing confusing about §46.03(i); people simply quit reading too soon. Read together, it is absolutely clear that churches,etc. are not off-limits unless they receive notice pursuant to TPC §30.06. If LTCs are not aware of this fact, then their LTC Instructor let them down in a very big way.

Chas.

My landlady just called to tell me that the owners of our apartment complex have decided to pull down the 30.06 signs on our community room/leasing office building and issue a letter signed by one of the owners, who is a lawyer. They are doing the same thing in all their properties in about 3-4 states. I am going to get my own copy of that letter when she receives it, because it will override the handgun addendum in my lease, too, but I want it in writing in case there is ever a dispute over my right to carry concealed. They still will not allow open carry inside that building, so the 30.07 signs will remain. However, we are still allowed to carry concealed or open while anywhere else on the property. The landlady knows that the reason I quit attending the luncheons and exercise classes in that building almost two years ago was because I told her I was not crossing the transom in a door that leads to a gun-free zone. I'm happy about their change of heart regarding this. I was on the verge of trying to move elsewhere, but now I want to stay, because I have good friends here who are unarmed. I know for sure three other residents have permits, but don't carry outside their car or house. Maybe they'll decide it's a good thing and start looking for holsters.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:.....
There is nothing confusing about §46.03(i); people simply quit reading too soon. Read together, it is absolutely clear that churches,etc. are not off-limits unless they receive notice pursuant to TPC §30.06. If LTCs are not aware of this fact, then their LTC Instructor let them down in a very big way.

Chas.

And LEOs. My church didn't even consider putting up 06/07. Not because they are pro-gun (which most are by the way) but because a detective sergeant told them church carry was prohibited. Evidently no one on the safety committee holds an LTC. Or maybe they do and figured ignorance was one way of keeping signs away.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

rtschl wrote:

GeekwithaGun wrote: common mistake to not read further:

(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not
given effective notice under Section 30.06 or 30.07.

I saw AG Ken Paxton in an interview with Laura Ingraham say that it is confusing the way it is worded and too many people think they cannot carry in a church. I had to do a double take because at first I thought he said it was prohibited. He got a chance to expand and state if notice is given then it is prohibited, but the way the statue is worded needs to be addressed. I'm paraphrasing him, but good that the AG of the state recognizes that it is confusing to people.

Edited: Found interview on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC36id1t2T8 Paxton's part starts at 5:05 mark and then starts explanation at 6:10 about needing to make it more clear.

TPC §46.035(i) was created in 1997 as part of HB2909. We had to do it that way to achieve the goal. People constantly ask why we didn't just repeal the prohibition on churches, hospitals, etc. The simple answer is we didn't have the votes. The prohibition on carrying in churches, hospitals, etc. was necessary to pass SB60 in 1995 in order to create concealed carry. It was not politically feasible to delete those locations from the off-limits list only two years later. Heck, look how long I've been pushing to repeal all off-limits areas.

There is nothing confusing about §46.03(i); people simply quit reading too soon. Read together, it is absolutely clear that churches,etc. are not off-limits unless they receive notice pursuant to TPC §30.06. If LTCs are not aware of this fact, then their LTC Instructor let them down in a very big way.

Chas.

Charles,

I agree and understand why it was done that way and appreciate your efforts that got us where we are! One day hopefully we will see a repeal of all off-limits areas.

I do not find it confusing, as the phrase "do not apply" is crystal clear. But I do think it trips up to too many people as I have had this discussion many times. This included CHL and Security instructors in the past claiming DPS was telling them that it was still prohibited. I believe that practice was stopped with your help. I still have had to show people including LEOs the full text - which I have subsection "i" highlighted and in bold on my phone.

Pastor will be armed during services after #SutherlandSprings

Pastor says he plans to carry handgun after Sutherland Springs church shooting

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3619146

Pastor Jaime Chapa of El Faro Bible Church in Sullivan City, Texas, told ABC affiliate station KRGV he'll be carrying a handgun during church services from here on out.

His licensed parishioners are also expected to have weapons on them inside the house of worship.

"What happened in Sutherland (Springs, Texas) will not ever happen in our church," he said.

Good Shepherd
1 Samuel 17:34-36

34But David said to Saul, “Your servant was tending his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, 35I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him. 36“Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God.”

Range time is important:

39David girded his sword over his armor and tried to walk, for he had not tested them. So David said to Saul, “I cannot go with these, for I have not tested them.” And David took them off. 40He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd’s bag which he had, even in his pouch, and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine.

rtschl wrote:....

I do not find it confusing, as the phrase "do not apply" is crystal clear. But I do think it trips up to too many people as I have had this discussion many times. This included CHL and Security instructors in the past claiming DPS was telling them that it was still prohibited. I believe that practice was stopped with your help. I still have had to show people including LEOs the full text - which I have subsection "i" highlighted and in bold on my phone.

At the instructor class, Jan 2016, when going over prohibited places the DPS instructor had a slide for each section. I don't have the handouts with me but the slide was something like:

In a church, synagogue, or other
established place of religious worship

Must be posted in accordance with PC 30

A person sitting behind me turned to the person sitting beside him and said "So, you still can't carry in church?" On none of the slides did the instructor insure that everyone understood what the bottom line meant. Maybe they do now.