TexasCHLforum.com

If a person has a concealed handgun license, they should be allowed to carry everywhere. Posting a sign prohibiting handguns or not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry in certain places means one thing - criminals will be the only ones armed in those places. I've would like to get active in Texas to change the laws that prohibit us from carrying in certain places. If a company, school, or hospital wants to post a 30.06 sign, then they should also be required to provide armed guards and metal detectors at every entrance to their property. I also want the state to eliminate any exception to our concealed carry permit, such as polling places, sports venues and courts.

I'd appreciate any information on resources for lobbying to make our carry rights better.

Thanks,

Ben

This forum is a good start. Are you a member of TSRA? If not, you should join and the NRA as well. Next, perhaps email Alice Tripp, the TSRA lobbyist, and ask her how you can help.

Last legislative session, I monitored bill status both at the Texas legislature's website & on this forum. Contacted legislators via email and phone any time we needed to push to get a bill through committee, for instance. Also went to Austin, and walked the halls at the Capitol and visited legislators' office in person, spoke w staffers directly.

There is also a section on this forum named "Legislative". Within there is a topic for 2013 Texas Legislative Session. That will be a great place to get info when the session gets going. During the last session, i found this forum to be very helpful in learning what's going on, the reasons behind positions, who supports and opposes bills, phone numbers to call etc.

bentcursor wrote:If a person has a concealed handgun license, they should be allowed to carry everywhere. Posting a sign prohibiting handguns or not allowing law-abiding citizens to carry in certain places means one thing - criminals will be the only ones armed in those places. I've would like to get active in Texas to change the laws that prohibit us from carrying in certain places. If a company, school, or hospital wants to post a 30.06 sign, then they should also be required to provide armed guards and metal detectors at every entrance to their property. I also want the state to eliminate any exception to our concealed carry permit, such as polling places, sports venues and courts.

I'd appreciate any information on resources for lobbying to make our carry rights better.

Thanks,

Ben

I get where you're coming from, but private property rights should still mean something.

If a private property doesn't want me to carry, that's their decision. Just as it will be my decision to not patronize their business.

Now, we shouldn't mess with the 30.06 stuff legally, but we can do a lot educationally.

Write to businesses that post the signs. Inform them you won't be buying anything from them, because of their stance on 2nd amendment rights. Explain that the signs only prohibit lawful concealed carry, and that criminals ignore the law. Let them know the stellar record of CHL holders here in Texas, and explain that they're losing money.

My .02 on the issue.

Now, regarding gun rights in general, the others are right. Join NRA, TSRA, help campaign for pro 2A candidates.

I commend your position on wanting to change the laws many of us here have been trying in conjunction with the TSRA and Mr Cotton for years. Every legislative session we manage to take another step forward, unfortunatly your ultimate goal will never come all at once, it is just reality, slow and steady seems to be how things get done, a law gets passed then it is tweaked and added to each session.

I think we all understand your point about metal dectors and armed guards although it does not seem to have any judicial merit, especially since sometime in the 1980's the SCOTUS ruled that the police have no duty to protect, if the police do not have that duty I highly doubt that a private property owner would be required to live up to a higher standard.

We cannot and should not mandate what people can and cannot do with their private property, we have choices, do not go onto posted property and spend your money there and when you see a posted business try to educate the owner with real facts about CHL holders rather than what the anti's claim to be facts. Personally I have no issues with the concept behind the 51% law, I think almost everybody would agree that guns and booze do not compliment each other very well.

This forum is the premier place to keep abreast on what is happening in Austin and the members respond to calls for action when our combined lobbying powers are needed, we may not be politicians, but we have votes and our voices are heard when a good piece of legislation is being discussed. The bottom line is that people who want to represent the feeling and desires of CHL holders need to be logical, professional and part of the solution rather than create another problem that does not currently exist, a small faction of the OC crowd found this out first hand a few years ago, I am wondering if they still walk with a limp after shooting themselves in the foot.......

We appreciate your thoughts and input, and welcome to the forum, pull up a chair it can get very interesting here

I won't say everywhere but someone with a CHL should be legal to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry.

I agree we should be able to carry anywhere. And being Libertarian leaning as I am, I wouldn't say we should be required to have a permit to 'bear' arms (per 2A). But we are where we are. One way to push the issue while still respecting property rights is to place some liability on the business owners who post. That if a CHL holder is mugged, shot, or otherwise attacked by a BG on your posted property, then you assume liability for that. By posting you in essence say "you may not defend yourself on my property". Fine. Then you accept the responsibility for it given you've denied me the ability to do so. Conversely, you could also limit the liability of the property owners/businesses if a CHL holder fires a gun in your place (assuming it's not posted). The liability would remain with the CHL holder. But I think many businesses believe that if someone with a gun has an ND that they'll be held liable for it. Carrot and stick. Do those things and I'd wager 90% of the 30.06 signs would go away. Placing liability on the shoulders of the businesses would probably get some insurers to press them to take them down. But it would still respect property rights.

I appreciate the feedback and also the resources people have provided. While I agree that a person has a right to prohibit whoever and whatever he wants on private property, the government should not be interfering with a CHL holder's right to carry. We should be allowed to carry anywhere and if a person or organization asks us to leave, that's within their right. The onus should be on the property owner, not the CHL holder.

I guess I'm also distinguishing between carrying on posted private property and being told by the government "even though you can legally carry, we're going to limit where you can carry." Why can I carry in a hospital that is not posted, but can't in a hospital that is? The only reason is because they are allowed to post a 30.06 sign. If the hospital wants to prohibit me from carrying, that's up to them. They just shouldn't be given a legal option via the legislature.

It seems to me that there's an analogy between the CHL and a driver's license. Once I have a license, I can legally drive wherever I want. If there are posted signs saying "private property", I have to abide by those signs. But the government isn't telling me that I can drive on certain streets but not others. If the government posts "Do Not Enter" signs on a road, that applies to all licensed drivers, not just a certain class.

recaffeination wrote:I won't say everywhere but someone with a CHL should be legal to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry.

If the state gave to chl holders the same rights to arrest and other police powers as leo's, then I would agree. In that absence, chl is a few steps behind a leo, does not have to answer to the same standard, and hence should not have the same flexibility.

gdanaher wrote:

recaffeination wrote:I won't say everywhere but someone with a CHL should be legal to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry.

If the state gave to chl holders the same rights to arrest and other police powers as leo's, then I would agree. In that absence, chl is a few steps behind a leo, does not have to answer to the same standard, and hence should not have the same flexibility.

The right to arrest and other police powers is irrelevant to the discussion of allowing citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms wherever they are legally allowed to be. Just because someone is a certified peace officer does not sprinkle them with special powers that should allow them to carry in places we statutorily cannot.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote: Just because someone is a certified peace officer does not sprinkle them with special powers that should allow them to carry in places we statutorily cannot.

You could not possibly be serious.

gdanaher wrote:

recaffeination wrote:I won't say everywhere but someone with a CHL should be legal to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry.

If the state gave to chl holders the same rights to arrest and other police powers as leo's, then I would agree. In that absence, chl is a few steps behind a leo, does not have to answer to the same standard, and hence should not have the same flexibility.

What about retired LEOs and LEOSA? Retired LEOs are no longer held to the same standards or have the same authority that their active brethren have, but they can still carry anywhere that an actively serving LEO can. So why do they get rights that the rest of us don't? Because they once had a job which they no longer have?

If that's your argument, then LEOSA should not apply to retired LEOs......but it does.....so CHLs should be able to carry anywhere that a retired LEO can carry under LEOSA.

Beat that.

gdanaher wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Just because someone is a certified peace officer does not sprinkle them with special powers that should allow them to carry in places we statutorily cannot.

You could not possibly be serious.

Serious as a heart attack. Never been more serious in my life. The second amendment trumps all restrictions. Read it. That is what it says. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard for some to grasp? Why do some want to grant power to someone just because they have done something like...go to class, get a job, live somewhere, be married to someone, or whatever "special" label you want to give them. The only thing that matters is that we are citizens not afoul of the law. Remember the old all men are created equal thing? How about our being granted unalienable rights by our creator?

Yes, I am very serious. You should be too.

Anygunanywhere

Some people believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, and only the police and military should be allowed to carry in certain places. There's a word for those people but it's against forum rules to say it out loud.

It appears that your elected officials in Austin have chosen to write state legislation which distinguishes the rights of sworn peace officers from those who hold concealed handgun licenses, or visa versa. There must somehow be some reason for this, and given their high intellect, wisdom, and knowledge, they must have done this for good cause. If that reasoning doesn't work, remember that these laws were created and later reviewed by Republican legislatures and Republican governors. Does anyone think that CHL holders would have greater flexibility had these legislatures been predominantly Democratic?