TexasCHLforum.com

No need for "advanced license", the excellent 20 year record of CHL/LTC holders should speak for itself as far as removing restrictions of where we can carry. I trust that this will be one of our #1 priorities for 2017 session.

No. Rather than focusing on how good a shot you are, the perspective of why civilians are allowed to carry handguns in public should be addressed. The main purpose for civilians' carry is for self defense/protection versus the purpose for LEO's is to serve and protect the public and enforce the laws.

longhorn86 wrote:No need for "advanced license", the excellent 20 year record of CHL/LTC holders should speak for itself as far as removing restrictions of where we can carry. I trust that this will be one of our #1 priorities for 2017 session.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The as-filed version of HB308 would have put CHLs in the same "Not applicable" section of §46.15 as peace officers. In short, we could carry everywhere a LEO can carry.

Chas.

The one part of HB308 that I really liked (if I read it correctly) was the ability to carry in a hospital. I am in and out of hospitals every day and I hate the fact that I have to disarm every time.

doncb wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The as-filed version of HB308 would have put CHLs in the same "Not applicable" section of §46.15 as peace officers. In short, we could carry everywhere a LEO can carry.

Chas.

The one part of HB308 that I really liked (if I read it correctly) was the ability to carry in a hospital. I am in and out of hospitals every day and I hate the fact that I have to disarm every time.

Do the hospitals post 30.06? If not you are free to carry there today.

HB 308 removed the places off limits (46.035 IIRC). But it didn't change 30.06. So in the end, private businesses/individuals were the folks that could ban carry.

Mississippi used the enhanced license approach to gain school carry (and maybe a few more locations, can't remember). I think you took an additonal class, maybe 4 or 8 hours. I'd prefer not to take another class. But I'd take a 40 hour one if it would remove 46.035.

v-rog wrote:

TxAggieEngineer wrote:Interesting responses so far. A question from one of my follow-ups... Do you think businesses that post 30.06/07 signs don't trust that LTC holders are adequately trained and qualified (meaning, they don't start shaking in their boots when a LEO walks in) or are they just trying to make a political statement? If it's the former, how do we address that?

From what I have witnessed, many business owners are concerned about not being able to tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns.

That's easy. Just put up the 30.06/30.07 sign and create a gun-free "innocent victim" zone and you'll easily be able to tell the bad guys with guns.

tex

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxAggieEngineer wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: Instead, in the 2017 legislative session, look for a bill similar to last session's HB 308.

If I'm reading that correctly, HB 308 (46.15(5)(a)(5) would essentially invalidate 30.06 signs. Is that correct?

I was not aware of that bill.

The as-filed version of HB308 would have put CHLs in the same "Not applicable" section of §46.15 as peace officers. In short, we could carry everywhere a LEO can carry.

Chas.

I really liked HB308. Other than spending way too much political capital on OC, were there any other push back issues from our side on any part of that bill?

v-rog wrote:

TxAggieEngineer wrote:Interesting responses so far. A question from one of my follow-ups... Do you think businesses that post 30.06/07 signs don't trust that LTC holders are adequately trained and qualified (meaning, they don't start shaking in their boots when a LEO walks in) or are they just trying to make a political statement? If it's the former, how do we address that?

From what I have witnessed, many business owners are concerned about not being able to tell the good guys with guns from the bad guys with guns.

You won't see the bad guy's gun until it is too late. You won't see the good guy's gun until you have already seen the bad guy's gun.

Bad guys won't OC.

AJSully421 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxAggieEngineer wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: Instead, in the 2017 legislative session, look for a bill similar to last session's HB 308.

If I'm reading that correctly, HB 308 (46.15(5)(a)(5) would essentially invalidate 30.06 signs. Is that correct?

I was not aware of that bill.

The as-filed version of HB308 would have put CHLs in the same "Not applicable" section of §46.15 as peace officers. In short, we could carry everywhere a LEO can carry.

Chas.

I really liked HB308. Other than spending way too much political capital on OC, were there any other push back issues from our side on any part of that bill?

There was no real push-back, but that's because "we" didn't push the Bill. I was a lone wolf on that one.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I really liked HB308. Other than spending way too much political capital on OC, were there any other push back issues from our side on any part of that bill?

There was no real push-back, but that's because "we" didn't push the Bill. I was a lone wolf on that one.

Chas.

I sure hope you can get both the NRA and TSRA to put it on their priority list next year!

I see this as far more useful to far more people than OC ever will be.

If you really want to cause an uproar, have HB308 address concealed carry only.

MeMelYup wrote:If you really want to cause an uproar, have HB308 address concealed carry only.

Their heads would explode.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxAggieEngineer wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: Instead, in the 2017 legislative session, look for a bill similar to last session's HB 308.

If I'm reading that correctly, HB 308 (46.15(5)(a)(5) would essentially invalidate 30.06 signs. Is that correct?

I was not aware of that bill.

The as-filed version of HB308 would have put CHLs in the same "Not applicable" section of §46.15 as peace officers. In short, we could carry everywhere a LEO can carry.

Chas.

I really liked HB308. Other than spending way too much political capital on OC, were there any other push back issues from our side on any part of that bill?

There was no real push-back, but that's because "we" didn't push the Bill. I was a lone wolf on that one.

Chas.

So, what can an ordinary guy like myself do? Call and send emails once we have a bill number next year?

JP171 wrote:no because LEO's have the same score requirements we do

My thought is that advanced training would have a lot more to do with other things that aren't related to placing a bullet in the proper location.

longhorn86 wrote:No need for "advanced license", the excellent 20 year record of CHL/LTC holders should speak for itself as far as removing restrictions of where we can carry. I trust that this will be one of our #1 priorities for 2017 session.

You don't expect our legislators to make laws based on actual facts and data do you?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TxAggieEngineer wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: Instead, in the 2017 legislative session, look for a bill similar to last session's HB 308.

If I'm reading that correctly, HB 308 (46.15(5)(a)(5) would essentially invalidate 30.06 signs. Is that correct?

I was not aware of that bill.

The as-filed version of HB308 would have put CHLs in the same "Not applicable" section of §46.15 as peace officers. In short, we could carry everywhere a LEO can carry.

Chas.

I really liked HB308. Other than spending way too much political capital on OC, were there any other push back issues from our side on any part of that bill?

There was no real push-back, but that's because "we" didn't push the Bill. I was a lone wolf on that one.

Chas.

Hopefully, your lone wolf status will change next session.