TexasCHLforum.com

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

That's what I get for trying to rely on my memory. I would have sworn that I had read in one of the AG's opinions that any gov't attempt to restrict LTCs (not just 30.06/07) was a reportable violation. My apologies for handing out incorrect information.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

Can you clarify that since we are talking about county and municipalities posting those signs, not private businesses. Again, using Love Field as the example, if you walk up to the any of the main entrance doors you'll see a gun buster with the wording (don't recall exact quote but is very close to it) firearms are not permitted on these premises. I know that that only applies to the "secured areas" and it's my job to know the law but it's misleading. And can I trust the airport police to know that sign is meaningless to an LTCer who is only there to pick up a passenger.

I can see the sign saying firearms not permitted in secured areas or posting at the entrance to TSA checkpoints. What's to keep counties/cities from posting similar signs on all their buildings simply because they didn't reference 30.06?

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

Can you clarify that since we are talking about county and municipalities posting those signs, not private businesses. Again, using Love Field as the example, if you walk up to the any of the main entrance doors you'll see a gun buster with the wording (don't recall exact quote but is very close to it) firearms are not permitted on these premises. I know that that only applies to the "secured areas" and it's my job to know the law but it's misleading. And can I trust the airport police to know that sign is meaningless to an LTCer who is only there to pick up a passenger.

I can see the sign saying firearms not permitted in secured areas or posting at the entrance to TSA checkpoints. What's to keep counties/cities from posting similar signs on all their buildings simply because they didn't reference 30.06?

They can post them and they can apply to any gun that is not carried under the authority of LTC.

TXBO wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 wrote:Sec. 411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A state agency or a political subdivision of the state may not provide notice by a communication described by Section 30.06, Penal Code, or by any sign expressly referring to that law or to a concealed handgun license, that a license holder carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter is prohibited from entering or remaining on a premises or other place owned or leased by the governmental entity unless license holders are prohibited from carrying a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or 46.035, Penal Code.

This does not mean any and all no-gun signs violate §411.209.

Chas.

That's what I was thinking. So...to avoid the fine but still post a firearms prohibited gun buster, all these municipalities could replace 30.06 signs with the gun buster signs like the ones at Love? I could see an LTCer being detained by airport security for picking someone up at the baggage claim because the security is confused by the law. So if those signs have no weight why are they there? There's your issue for 2017. Include in that statue gun buster signs with the 30.06 wording.

Under current law, any sign that references §30.06, a concealed handgun license, or a licensee is already unlawful. We don't need address this and we don't want to address generic no-gun signs that don't meet the current criteria.

Chas.

Can you clarify that since we are talking about county and municipalities posting those signs, not private businesses. Again, using Love Field as the example, if you walk up to the any of the main entrance doors you'll see a gun buster with the wording (don't recall exact quote but is very close to it) firearms are not permitted on these premises. I know that that only applies to the "secured areas" and it's my job to know the law but it's misleading. And can I trust the airport police to know that sign is meaningless to an LTCer who is only there to pick up a passenger.

I can see the sign saying firearms not permitted in secured areas or posting at the entrance to TSA checkpoints. What's to keep counties/cities from posting similar signs on all their buildings simply because they didn't reference 30.06?

They can post them and they can apply to any gun that is not carried under the authority of LTC.

Yes. Colorado posts this on their entries which is more explicit:
It is a FELONY OFFENSE for any person without legal authority to bring a loaded firearm or
explosive or incendiary device into the airport or aboard a commercial aircraft. Violators
may be sentenced to five years imprisonment a fine of $10.000 or both. Those with a valid
permit/license can carry into the airport but not into the sterile areas of the airport. Your
valid permit/license is your legal authority.

Hoodasnacks wrote:Interesting, that would be a bad unintended consequence. Perhaps the answer is to create 2 classes of LTC, one for 18-21, the other for 21+. I wouldn't like any additional restrictions, but there are probably some that people could stomach to get it through (e.g. taking into account different juvenile behavior in the background check, additional forfeiture circumstances). The law should certainly be more narrowly tailored than just a 21 year old age cutoff. Imagine if a 20 year old didn't get 4th amendment protections....

CleverNickname wrote:The solution is to make two legally distinct types of LTCs. One would be for 18-20 year olds, and the other would be for >=21 year olds. Other states will be free to recognize none, one or both. Some states currently have tiered licenses (Idaho and Mississippi come to mind) and some other states only recognize the higher tiered license, so this just isn't theoretical.

Two different licenses would not work either. The other state will not rely on the police to determine which license is valid in that state. Instead, they will just deny all Texas licenses. The path of least resistance... for them.

Pawpaw wrote:

Hoodasnacks wrote:Interesting, that would be a bad unintended consequence. Perhaps the answer is to create 2 classes of LTC, one for 18-21, the other for 21+. I wouldn't like any additional restrictions, but there are probably some that people could stomach to get it through (e.g. taking into account different juvenile behavior in the background check, additional forfeiture circumstances). The law should certainly be more narrowly tailored than just a 21 year old age cutoff. Imagine if a 20 year old didn't get 4th amendment protections....

CleverNickname wrote:The solution is to make two legally distinct types of LTCs. One would be for 18-20 year olds, and the other would be for >=21 year olds. Other states will be free to recognize none, one or both. Some states currently have tiered licenses (Idaho and Mississippi come to mind) and some other states only recognize the higher tiered license, so this just isn't theoretical.

Two different licenses would not work either. The other state will not rely on the police to determine which license is valid in that state. Instead, they will just deny all Texas licenses. The path of least resistance... for them.

Once Texas made licenses available to military personnel 18-20, we lost one or two states. Others seem fine just giving reciprocity for >21. Why is anyone going to change if we increase the eligible 18-20 yr olds? If we want to do it we should do it.

I'd like to see the drinking age lowered to 18 too, but that ain't gonna happen.

Pawpaw wrote:

Hoodasnacks wrote:Interesting, that would be a bad unintended consequence. Perhaps the answer is to create 2 classes of LTC, one for 18-21, the other for 21+. I wouldn't like any additional restrictions, but there are probably some that people could stomach to get it through (e.g. taking into account different juvenile behavior in the background check, additional forfeiture circumstances). The law should certainly be more narrowly tailored than just a 21 year old age cutoff. Imagine if a 20 year old didn't get 4th amendment protections....

CleverNickname wrote:The solution is to make two legally distinct types of LTCs. One would be for 18-20 year olds, and the other would be for >=21 year olds. Other states will be free to recognize none, one or both. Some states currently have tiered licenses (Idaho and Mississippi come to mind) and some other states only recognize the higher tiered license, so this just isn't theoretical.

Two different licenses would not work either. The other state will not rely on the police to determine which license is valid in that state. Instead, they will just deny all Texas licenses. The path of least resistance... for them.

Did you miss where I said that other states have tiered licenses, which have accomplished exactly what would be intended if we did this?

Pawpaw wrote:

Hoodasnacks wrote:Interesting, that would be a bad unintended consequence. Perhaps the answer is to create 2 classes of LTC, one for 18-21, the other for 21+. I wouldn't like any additional restrictions, but there are probably some that people could stomach to get it through (e.g. taking into account different juvenile behavior in the background check, additional forfeiture circumstances). The law should certainly be more narrowly tailored than just a 21 year old age cutoff. Imagine if a 20 year old didn't get 4th amendment protections....

CleverNickname wrote:The solution is to make two legally distinct types of LTCs. One would be for 18-20 year olds, and the other would be for >=21 year olds. Other states will be free to recognize none, one or both. Some states currently have tiered licenses (Idaho and Mississippi come to mind) and some other states only recognize the higher tiered license, so this just isn't theoretical.

Two different licenses would not work either. The other state will not rely on the police to determine which license is valid in that state. Instead, they will just deny all Texas licenses. The path of least resistance... for them.

Surely we have smart lawyers that can craft this in a way to make it work. You would just need to call it something different than what other states would refer to as a CHL.

Just thinking out loud:

I do 98% of my carrying in TX. I think I would sacrifice some reciprocity for the every day rights of fellow Texans. Also, at this point, are we only speculating that we lose some reciprocity? Maybe we only lose it from states we do not care about? I throw it out there just because it may be worth thinking through the details. If we are talking remote states like PA and WV, we can let them go...that would hurt much less of us than the 18+ rule would help.

If legislation akin to HB 308 (2015) still can't get enough support next year, would it be a step forward to consider something like an "Enhanced LTC", similar to ID and MS?

Not being able to carry in stadiums and schools is just ridiculous. Schools especially. It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

RoyGBiv wrote:If legislation akin to HB 308 (2015) still can't get enough support next year, would it be a step forward to consider something like an "Enhanced LTC", similar to ID and MS?

Not being able to carry in stadiums and schools is just ridiculous. Schools especially. It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

I think with Open Carry passed, a HB308 type bill will get way more political capital (probably near all of it) as far as firearm laws in Texas goes. If that doesn't make it, neither would an enhanced ltc bill.

RoyGBiv wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

Whether that's true or not, any suggestion of allowing licensees to carry into schools is an absolute, instant non-starter.

Ruark wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

Whether that's true or not, any suggestion of allowing licensees to carry into schools is an absolute, instant non-starter.

I'm not so sure about it being a non-starter forever. It may be hard to get it considered today but I think down the road it could happen. Consider that some school districts are allowing some teachers to carry. Not long ago, that was thought of as an absurd nonstarter.

mojo84 wrote:

Ruark wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

Whether that's true or not, any suggestion of allowing licensees to carry into schools is an absolute, instant non-starter.

I'm not so sure about it being a non-starter forever. It may be hard to get it considered today but I think down the road it could happen. Consider that some school districts are allowing some teachers to carry. Not long ago, that was thought of as an absurd nonstarter.

With an increasing number of school districts exercising their authority to allow the carrying of handguns in school buildings, I no longer think it is a goal that is DOA. I would have agreed a few years ago, but no longer. Couple the threat to school children with the intellectual dishonesty of local officials thumbing their noses at §411.209/SB273 and we may find a Legislature willing to remove all unnecessary off-limits restrictions.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Ruark wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:It boggles the mind that anyone could think that a "no-guns in schools" law accomplishes anything more than creating a soft target and announcing it to the world. I can avoid stadiums, but I can't avoid schools.

Whether that's true or not, any suggestion of allowing licensees to carry into schools is an absolute, instant non-starter.

I'm not so sure about it being a non-starter forever. It may be hard to get it considered today but I think down the road it could happen. Consider that some school districts are allowing some teachers to carry. Not long ago, that was thought of as an absurd nonstarter.

With an increasing number of school districts exercising their authority to allow the carrying of handguns in school buildings, I no longer think it is a goal that is DOA. I would have agreed a few years ago, but no longer. Couple the threat to school children with the intellectual dishonesty of local officials thumbing their noses at §411.209/SB273 and we may find a Legislature willing to remove all unnecessary off-limits restrictions.

Chas.

Pretty much what I was hoping. Was trying to be cautiously optimistic with my comment. Thanks for the input.