TexasCHLforum.com

The Senate administration committee has voted to "ban" weapons from the gallery in the Capitol building. Ever since the CHL law went into effect, the Capitol has been open to concealed carry. I have given the CHL class to several legislators in their offices. The policy is being written at this time.

I would like everyone to call or write the members of this committee and have them exempt CHL holders from the "no weapons" policy. The legislators don't seem to know about the 30.06 rule or much of anything else.

Here are the committee members:
Chair: Sen. Kim Brimer
Vice Chair: Sen. Carlos Uresti
Members: Sen. Kel Seliger
Sen. Florence Shapiro
Sen. Jeff Wentworth
Sen. John Whitmire
Sen. Judith Zaffirini

Here is the story;

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/r ... pitol.html

Yep, can't be trusted...

If they are successful in implementing this...

Then I want lockers, right now...no if's, and's, or but's...I want a secure area where I can store my firearm while I visit these facilities...

I don't believe that is unreasonable...

I also find it ironic (but not surprising) they voted to move on this so late in the session, as to keep any legislation to counter it impossible (or nearly) to be considered...

I dunno...I get a little frapped sometimes when they pull stuff like this...

I guess it makes me unreasonable, un-cool, troublemaker and have no credibility...

I suspect they won't post a 30.06 sign, but they will give verbal notice when a CHL tries to enter. Since meetings of governmental entities have been off-limits since the CHL statute first passed, so long as effective notice is given per 30.06, I'm a little surprised we haven't seen this earlier. Prior to 9/11, it never came to mind, but now we see security measures pop up everywhere.

When SB60 was being debated, an amendment was going to be offered that would make the entire building off-limits, but Sen. Patterson successfully argued against it. I wouldn't put it past our opposition to have called in some "gun scares" to get this implemented. It will be interesting to see if the metal detectors are back next session.

Chas.

Messages sent to the following:


Chair: Sen. Kim Brimer
Vice Chair: Sen. Carlos Uresti
Members: Sen. Kel Seliger
Sen. Florence Shapiro
Sen. Jeff Wentworth
Sen. John Whitmire
Sen. Judith Zaffirini

I noted that even during times of heightened security alerts when metal detectors were in place at entrances to the Capitol, CHL's were still permitted to carry with, of course, NO ill effects.

I also mentioned that by not excluding CHL's form this restriction,they would effectively either disarm the CHL holder for his/her entire visit to the Capitol or ban them from ever visiting the Senate proceedings.

Let's all follow up on this.

I spoke to a staffer at Vice-Chair Sen. Uresti regarding this and he was not certain whether or not the wording of the action taken by the Senate had any special wording dealing with CHL's.

I have not been able to find it online. Maybe tomorrow.

CWOOD wrote:I spoke to a staffer at Vice-Chair Sen. Uresti regarding this and he was not certain whether or not the wording of the action taken by the Senate had any special wording dealing with CHL's.

I have not been able to find it online. Maybe tomorrow.

I'm confused. If they're not directing this at CHLers, who are they directing it at? It's obviously already illegal to carry a concealed handgun in public without a license, regardless of whether you're in the Senate gallery or not. This makes me think that they are targeting CHL carriers specifically, otherwise it would be a superfluous law. Does this cover pocket knives and OC as well?

I don't think they're worried about a CHL in the gallery opening up on the Senate floor. I think this is part of an overall security "upgrade" (yeah, I don't feel it's an upgrade) that is intended to stop anyone armed from getting into the gallery. It could be a terrorist or someone really really made about a certain bill. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the threat evaluation or the metal detectors, I just think this is the motive. It will be interesting to see if they exempt CHL's.

Chas.

NcongruNt wrote:

CWOOD wrote:I spoke to a staffer at Vice-Chair Sen. Uresti regarding this and he was not certain whether or not the wording of the action taken by the Senate had any special wording dealing with CHL's.

I have not been able to find it online. Maybe tomorrow.

I'm confused. If they're not directing this at CHLers, who are they directing it at? It's obviously already illegal to carry a concealed handgun in public without a license, regardless of whether you're in the Senate gallery or not. This makes me think that they are targeting CHL carriers specifically, otherwise it would be a superfluous law. Does this cover pocket knives and OC as well?

I'm not truely angry about all of this, but I am extremely dissapointed that a select few have decided to push this...

I believe "NcongruNt" makes a fantastic point with what they just posted here...

A much of a big deal I'm making about this in opposition to this, I wonder why this was pursued in the first place, knowing its not going to prevent anything but keeping me (if I ever visit this facility in the future) from the means to defend myself if the need ever arose...

Suzanne Hupp sure did have it right years ago when she made this same point...

And I do not see anything that has changed since then...

Are they 46.03 or 46.035?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't think they're worried about a CHL in the gallery opening up on the Senate floor. I think this is part of an overall security "upgrade" (yeah, I don't feel it's an upgrade) that is intended to stop anyone armed from getting into the gallery. It could be a terrorist or someone really really made about a certain bill. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the threat evaluation or the metal detectors, I just think this is the motive. It will be interesting to see if they exempt CHL's.

Chas.

Didn't seem to help the shooting in the chambers of some government body about a year or two ago where an aid or friend walked in to commit the murder. As I recall, a bailiff or guard shot and killed the shooter. If that guard wasn't there (or was shot first), it might have been a CHL that prevented further death. Sorry for the lack of a link.

GlockenHammer wrote:Didn't seem to help the shooting in the chambers of some government body about a year or two ago where an aid or friend walked in to commit the murder. As I recall, a bailiff or guard shot and killed the shooter. If that guard wasn't there (or was shot first), it might have been a CHL that prevented further death. Sorry for the lack of a link.

I believe you're recalling an incident in NY, in the chambers of a city council. I don't recall if it was NYC, or another large NY city.

The shooter was either an aide to a councilman, or a former councilman with "trusted access" to the chambers, and could bypass security. An off-duty police officer in the gallery stopped the shooting with his personal carry weapon. The response by the political body was to ban carry by off-duty cops.

HUH?

GlockenHammer wrote: Didn't seem to help the shooting in the chambers of some government body about a year or two ago where an aid or friend walked in to commit the murder. As I recall, a bailiff or guard shot and killed the shooter. If that guard wasn't there (or was shot first), it might have been a CHL that prevented further death. Sorry for the lack of a link.

you can find the story here.

Liberty wrote:

GlockenHammer wrote: Didn't seem to help the shooting in the chambers of some government body about a year or two ago where an aid or friend walked in to commit the murder. As I recall, a bailiff or guard shot and killed the shooter. If that guard wasn't there (or was shot first), it might have been a CHL that prevented further death. Sorry for the lack of a link.

you can find the story here.

That's it. I wish there was a formula for responding to folks that think the answer to any shooting is to ban guns. I wish we could build up the fact that good guys with guns do good, bad guys with guns do bad. You can take away the guns from the good guys with a law, but you won't take them away from the bad guys with a law--only law enforcement. Gun ban laws just make us easier targets and encourages crime. Ugh!

[/soapbox]