TexasCHLforum.com

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Maybe some of the regular folks are falling into the trap that new CHLs do, not reading through to the bottom of the prohibited places section where the section was amended so that churches, hospitals, amusement parks, etc can prohibit concealed carry by posting 30.06. Obviously hospitals and amusement parks are already aware of this. Maybe churches aren't?

Churches are aware of 30.06. They don't want the ugly sign cluttering up their landscaping and out of sight is out of mind. If you can't see it what is there to complain about?

Many have also chosen to not make their congregants and members helpless sitting ducks.

I've sat in many business meetings and I've never even heard it come up. It's not been conscious choice to protect the congregation and its not been a conscious choice to avoid the ugly sign. I think it's simply been a matter of out of site, out of mind. No one has perceived an issue that needed to be discussed.

I have sat in on many meeting where it was discussed. Also have discussed it one on one with pastors. Maybe the "business" meeting is the wrong meeting for it to be discussed. Try the usher, deacon or the church security meetings. If it hasn't been discussed, you may want to bring it up as it may be considered irresponsible by some not too in the event something bad happens.

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Maybe some of the regular folks are falling into the trap that new CHLs do, not reading through to the bottom of the prohibited places section where the section was amended so that churches, hospitals, amusement parks, etc can prohibit concealed carry by posting 30.06. Obviously hospitals and amusement parks are already aware of this. Maybe churches aren't?

Churches are aware of 30.06. They don't want the ugly sign cluttering up their landscaping and out of sight is out of mind. If you can't see it what is there to complain about?

Many have also chosen to not make their congregants and members helpless sitting ducks.

I've sat in many business meetings and I've never even heard it come up. It's not been conscious choice to protect the congregation and its not been a conscious choice to avoid the ugly sign. I think it's simply been a matter of out of site, out of mind. No one has perceived an issue that needed to be discussed.

It's never come up in our church as a formal issue, either. However, if some miscreant decided to violently persecute the believers in attendance, it would not be unlikely that the Spirit of the Lord would descend upon said miscreant in the form of overlapping fields of fire......

Jason K wrote:[... the Spirit of the Lord would descend upon said miscreant in the form of overlapping fields of fire......

Heh. I like.

mojo84 wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Maybe some of the regular folks are falling into the trap that new CHLs do, not reading through to the bottom of the prohibited places section where the section was amended so that churches, hospitals, amusement parks, etc can prohibit concealed carry by posting 30.06. Obviously hospitals and amusement parks are already aware of this. Maybe churches aren't?

Churches are aware of 30.06. They don't want the ugly sign cluttering up their landscaping and out of sight is out of mind. If you can't see it what is there to complain about?

Many have also chosen to not make their congregants and members helpless sitting ducks.

I've sat in many business meetings and I've never even heard it come up. It's not been conscious choice to protect the congregation and its not been a conscious choice to avoid the ugly sign. I think it's simply been a matter of out of site, out of mind. No one has perceived an issue that needed to be discussed.

I have sat in on many meeting where it was discussed. Also have discussed it one on one with pastors. Maybe the "business" meeting is the wrong meeting for it to be discussed. Try the usher, deacon or the church security meetings. If it hasn't been discussed, you may want to bring it up as it may be considered irresponsible by some not too in the event something bad happens.

Understood about the other meeting venues. I just didn't make the distinction...sat in many deacons meetings and bylaws discussions etc. I hear you though that you guys did discuss it. Just been my experience that it's not even been a formal topic of discussion for any policy changes.

I went to a large church (7500 typical attendance with three campuses and multiple services) before we moved to the Hill Country. We had several armed LE officers every service yet the church sponsored a CHL class for all clergy and staff that wanted it. Won't see a 30.06 sign there!

I wonder if this bill would have a better chance if bars were not in the mix?

stash wrote:I wonder if this bill would have a better chance if bars were not in the mix?

I seem to remember Charles making a statement that any time anything about 45.035 came up that the biggest question he got was about bars. It appears to be a problem for many.

I bet it would get us 10% more votes if the bars were still prohibited. Who knows, might pass just fine with them included. Try it with them this session. If it doesn't pass, try it without them next session.

Why is Homeland Security Committee meeting @ 930am not posted under scheduled broadcasts?

So if bars were allowed by this bill, what happens to 51%?

I also feel like the whole bar thing is an unnecessary redundancy as its already against the law to be intoxicated while carrying.

TVGuy wrote:Why is Homeland Security Committee meeting @ 930am not posted under scheduled broadcasts?

I noticed that too. Noticed also that it's a "Formal Meeting". I don't know if that has anything to do with it though. A closed meeting perhaps? I dunno.

Anybody have some ideas on it?

Aggie_engr wrote:I also feel like the whole bar thing is an unnecessary redundancy as its already against the law to be intoxicated while carrying.

Absolutely, but you know lawmakers won't see it that way. They're going to think every 51% location (which is not just bars) will turn into O.K. Corral the day the legislation take effect.

I, however, would like to carry when I'm the DD, or if I'm going to a comedy or band show that's at a 51% location.

joe817 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Why is Homeland Security Committee meeting @ 930am not posted under scheduled broadcasts?

I noticed that too. Noticed also that it's a "Formal Meeting". I don't know if that has anything to do with it though. A closed meeting perhaps? I dunno.

Anybody have some ideas on it?

I was just wondering that....

Aggie_engr wrote:So if bars were allowed by this bill, what happens to 51%?

I also feel like the whole bar thing is an unnecessary redundancy as its already against the law to be intoxicated while carrying.

I agree. But some guys go to bars just to look for a fight. You think that guy is going to follow the law? I don't see why the DD can't be carrying.

I just don't do bars. Period.

stash wrote:I wonder if this bill would have a better chance if bars were not in the mix?

Just need to get Nikki Goeser to testify and that nonsense argument will be shot down real quick. http://www.nikkigoeser.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mr1337 wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:I also feel like the whole bar thing is an unnecessary redundancy as its already against the law to be intoxicated while carrying.

Absolutely, but you know lawmakers won't see it that way. They're going to think every 51% location (which is not just bars) will turn into O.K. Corral the day the legislation take effect.

I, however, would like to carry when I'm the DD, or if I'm going to a comedy or band show that's at a 51% location.

I would be ok with the compromise of o% BAC if you're carrying in a 51% location.