TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote: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?

So you're saying the wrist band gets me into the zoo as well? Does it have to be the same day? By default the wrist band has already proven I am over 21, can I get beer from the garden without being carded? (sarcasm, BTW)

Only slightly more seriously, do they change the colors every day? Is the one I get today good tomorrow? If I get one in the morning, can I skip the metal detectors after lunch when re-entering? If I go to Oriental Trading and buy wrist bands, can I use my own color?

I think that this post dovetails well with Mojo's post. If they are already willing to push the limits at the zoo (where there may end up being real monetary penalties), and there are no legislative teeth in the law against a wrist band program (no defined penalties), when will they stop? The wrist bands may likely live much longer than the signs at the zoo. IF, however, there are no teeth to keep them from giving out wrist bands, are there any teeth to keep "us" from jacking with their whole program and wearing our own wrist bands? A person could add three or four colors; remove the issued one; wear the issued one but cover it with long sleeves or other accessories. The possibilities are numerous. I can't imagine this process holding up in court but is it another time when we'll have to wait for someone with the disposable income and time to challenge them?

BTP wrote:

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?

???
Where did I say this practice is good, preferred, needed, or right?

Let me clarify my comment for you. Their policy is wrong. It should be challenged through the city and the state. They should be forced to stop this. Until then, you have to operate on the assumption that the LEOs in that building believe their wristband policy is the law.

The question was asked what the downside of removing the wristband would be after entering the building. For concealed carry, maybe nothing bad would happen. Maybe something, but possibly nothing.

For open carry, I offered a hypothetical scenario that - until their approach changes - could have serious negative consequences for removing the wristband.

I was able to think of a potential downside and figured I'd share to round out the conversation. I'd opt to work through the city attorney and state AG instead of removing the wristband inside the building.

As always, YMMV. Good luck if you go for it, and I hope nobody sees a firearm-sans-wristband, assumes that this gun was illegally smuggled past the metal detector, and draws down on you. Assuming the unlikely worst case is avoided and they don't shoot, you'll probably win. Eventually.

I don't know why specifically this, but this sure has me fired up

goose wrote:
Only slightly more seriously, do they change the colors every day?

I think they change every day. I've seen red, green and the latest was pink. Each with Fort Worth and the NATO circle cross mark repeating around the band.

jb2012 wrote:I don't know why specifically this, but this sure has me fired up

I would guess that it is because a City government is circumventing the intent of State law. Especially when you step back and ponder what the original question was that this is trying to solve, and does does it really accomplish anything.

You cannot enter City Hall without an x-ray of your bags and walking through a metal detector staffed by armed Marshals, unless you have a card that says the State is okay with you carrying. If you make it past that barrier without a lot of commotion, chances are anyone with a gun is GTG.

fickman wrote:

BTP wrote:

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?

???
Where did I say this practice is good, preferred, needed, or right?

Let me clarify my comment for you. Their policy is wrong. It should be challenged through the city and the state. They should be forced to stop this. Until then, you have to operate on the assumption that the LEOs in that building believe their wristband policy is the law.

The question was asked what the downside of removing the wristband would be after entering the building. For concealed carry, maybe nothing bad would happen. Maybe something, but possibly nothing.

For open carry, I offered a hypothetical scenario that - until their approach changes - could have serious negative consequences for removing the wristband.

I was able to think of a potential downside and figured I'd share to round out the conversation. I'd opt to work through the city attorney and state AG instead of removing the wristband inside the building.

As always, YMMV. Good luck if you go for it, and I hope nobody sees a firearm-sans-wristband, assumes that this gun was illegally smuggled past the metal detector, and draws down on you. Assuming the unlikely worst case is avoided and they don't shoot, you'll probably win. Eventually.

My tone was not directed at you. It is directed at the at the issue and your part in bold is what pisses me off about it. Law is not something to play games with.

BTP wrote:

fickman wrote:Until then, you have to operate on the assumption that the LEOs in that building believe their wristband policy is the law.

My tone was not directed at you. It is directed at the at the issue and your part in bold is what pisses me off about it. Law is not something to play games with.

Understand and agree. . .

When it exists, the gap between the actual law and what those who enforce it perceive it to be is a minefield.

jb2012 wrote:I don't know why specifically this, but this sure has me fired up

I am guessing you have to show ID if you are carrying as well? Just for entering a public building.

Let's pick a day and have a "carry-in". A few dozen OCers wandering the various public areas and hallways smiling, greeting passers by in a cordial manner... for a few hours, several days a week, maybe the two weeks before a city council meeting.

BTP wrote:

jb2012 wrote:I don't know why specifically this, but this sure has me fired up

I would guess that it is because a City government is circumventing the intent of State law. Especially when you step back and ponder what the original question was that this is trying to solve, and does does it really accomplish anything.

You cannot enter City Hall without an x-ray of your bags and walking through a metal detector staffed by armed Marshals, unless you have a card that says the State is okay with you carrying. If you make it past that barrier without a lot of commotion, chances are anyone with a gun is GTG.

ummm, shouldn't that be an CHL/LTC card??? just a thought

ScottDLS wrote:

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

That might be one way for a gun show to get around the rules. I doubt that a City Hall could justify the zip tie and unloaded like a gun show could.

On second thought though, I could be wrong on this based on the comment about state pre-emption. A local government cannot make rules about how to carry. In the opinion on campus carry, the AG's office did not rule on the possibility of saying how to carry (like requiring a secure holster) but strongly implied it would not stand. The same logic could be applied to this and state pre-emption to make the rule illegal. As long as it isn't me being tried, I could see this as an interesting and precedent setting court case.

jb2012 wrote:I don't know why specifically this, but this sure has me fired up

I think, for me, because it smacks of the old southern "literacy tests" for voting. That happened before my time, and I realize that I wouldn't have been subjected to an Italian newspaper to prove my literacy, BUT I recognize wrong when I see it.

Besides, if we all keep coming to the conclusion that LTC badges/sashes/tiaras are a bad idea, especially if "required," then it's clear on principle that THIS is "A Bad Thing."

Certainly the idea of wearing a wrist band defeats the point of my carrying concealed...might as well show off that hogleg.

And I would suggest that the way LTC is handled in the State Capitol Building serves as an example of how the legislature INTENDS for LTC in public buildings (even those behind metal detectors) to be handled.

srothstein is right...there's a precedent to be set (or perhaps applied, since the Capitol has already set a precedent) here...