TexasCHLforum.com

I'm personally not a huge fan or locking my gun in my car when I enter a 30.06 or other gun free zone. I cannot for the life of me understand why some people believe that a gun is safer in an unattended vehicle rather than on the person of a responsible citizen. I've had two friends have their cars stolen within the last two years. Luckily they did not have a weapon in their car, but cars with guns in them are stolen every day in the US. I don't hear about a lot of guns being stolen right off of a LTC holder while he's carrying.

Obviously the best solution would be eliminating 30.06 and allow unrestricted carry for all LTC holders, with maybe exceptions for court rooms, restricted airport area, etc. However, even in a state as red as Texas, we don't always get what we want. So, would you be in favor of unrestricted carry for LTC holders if it meant LTC holders must take continuing education courses on an annual basis? How about a longer initial training class to cover more topics outside of what is currently covered?

In general, what would you be willing to trade for unrestricted carry, if anything?

By unrestricted, do you mean that 30.06 signs would not have the force of law?

If that is what you mean, then I would be willing to give up my right to legally prohibit concealed weapons on my property of it meant that others could not restrict my rights on their property.

I am willing to give up my LTC plastic for unrestricted, unlicensed carry.


That' s about it.

This is an interesting question, I am looking forward to the answers posted on this topic.

I don't think we need to "give up" anything. Requiring more training, for a constitutional right, flies directly in the face of "Shall Not Be Infringed", of which, we already have enough examples. I think that we should be able to legally carry anywhere LEO are permitted to carry. With the only restricted areas, being secured areas of jails and prisons, and secured areas of an airport. Even off duty, LEO can carry in courtrooms, even if they are party to a case, not connected with their job duties, including divorce, child custody, civil lawsuits etc. Off duty LEO can carry into any public school in Texas, professional, college, and high school sporting events, and TABC posted 51% premises.

They are not required to perform any additional firearms training by law, and are only required to meet the minimum standards of TECLOSE required continuing education courses. Each department may set different standards. Our record of being law abiding, far outweighs that of LEO, but we are still regarded, as somehow less competent. Please understand, I am not trying to bash LEO, I used to be one, so my experience with the requirements, is first hand.

So to answer your question, we already "give up" far too much, while still being denigrated to second class citizen status, by the general public, and lawmakers. JMHO

Jusme wrote:I don't think we need to "give up" anything. Requiring more training, for a constitutional right, flies directly in the face of "Shall Not Be Infringed", of which, we already have enough examples. I think that we should be able to legally carry anywhere LEO are permitted to carry. With the only restricted areas, being secured areas of jails and prisons, and secured areas of an airport. Even off duty, LEO can carry in courtrooms, even if they are party to a case, not connected with their job duties, including divorce, child custody, civil lawsuits etc. Off duty LEO can carry into any public school in Texas, professional, college, and high school sporting events, and TABC posted 51% premises.

They are not required to perform any additional firearms training by law, and are only required to meet the minimum standards of TECLOSE required continuing education courses. Each department may set different standards. Our record of being law abiding, far outweighs that of LEO, but we are still regarded, as somehow less competent. Please understand, I am not trying to bash LEO, I used to be one, so my experience with the requirements, is first hand.

So to answer your question, we already "give up" far too much, while still being denigrated to second class citizen status, by the general public, and lawmakers. JMHO

It's worked well in other states where no guns signs have no force of law. I don't think the supporters of 30.06 and 30.07 would go for it though.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

Jusme wrote:I don't think we need to "give up" anything. Requiring more training, for a constitutional right, flies directly in the face of "Shall Not Be Infringed", of which, we already have enough examples. I think that we should be able to legally carry anywhere LEO are permitted to carry. With the only restricted areas, being secured areas of jails and prisons, and secured areas of an airport. Even off duty, LEO can carry in courtrooms, even if they are party to a case, not connected with their job duties, including divorce, child custody, civil lawsuits etc. Off duty LEO can carry into any public school in Texas, professional, college, and high school sporting events, and TABC posted 51% premises.

They are not required to perform any additional firearms training by law, and are only required to meet the minimum standards of TECLOSE required continuing education courses. Each department may set different standards. Our record of being law abiding, far outweighs that of LEO, but we are still regarded, as somehow less competent. Please understand, I am not trying to bash LEO, I used to be one, so my experience with the requirements, is first hand.

So to answer your question, we already "give up" far too much, while still being denigrated to second class citizen status, by the general public, and lawmakers. JMHO

The answer is easy to envision, in my simple mind:

1. We get unrestricted carry,
2. Signs have no force of law,
3. Any property owner or business owner can ask you to leave for any reason at any time (color of your shirt, cut of your hair, presence of a gun),
4. #3 above is not valid in publicly owned places (e.g. parks, government owned or rented property, LCRA lands),
5. Certain publicly owned places can still ban guns (e.g. courtroom), but provide attended lockers such as we'd find for LEOs that have to disarm before entering a jail,
6. We retain licenses for the purpose of reciprocity, GFSZ, and simplified purchasing of guns from dealers.

Jusme wrote:I don't think we need to "give up" anything. Requiring more training, for a constitutional right, flies directly in the face of "Shall Not Be Infringed", of which, we already have enough examples. I think that we should be able to legally carry anywhere LEO are permitted to carry. With the only restricted areas, being secured areas of jails and prisons, and secured areas of an airport. Even off duty, LEO can carry in courtrooms, even if they are party to a case, not connected with their job duties, including divorce, child custody, civil lawsuits etc. Off duty LEO can carry into any public school in Texas, professional, college, and high school sporting events, and TABC posted 51% premises.

They are not required to perform any additional firearms training by law, and are only required to meet the minimum standards of TECLOSE required continuing education courses. Each department may set different standards. Our record of being law abiding, far outweighs that of LEO, but we are still regarded, as somehow less competent. Please understand, I am not trying to bash LEO, I used to be one, so my experience with the requirements, is first hand.

So to answer your question, we already "give up" far too much, while still being denigrated to second class citizen status, by the general public, and lawmakers. JMHO

Property rights issues are the real sticking point. I'm not willing to "give up" anything in exchange for my 2A rights. But, at the same time, it's going to be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to say that a property owner does not have the right to control what guns are allowed on their property. Private property, is just that, privately owned property and I for one would have great trouble with any government entity telling me what I can and cannot allow on my own property. It's already bad enough that Texas says it owns all the wild game on my property, and in some states they saw we don't own the water on our property. Thank goodness Texas is that communistic.

Jusme wrote:I don't think we need to "give up" anything. Requiring more training, for a constitutional right, flies directly in the face of "Shall Not Be Infringed", of which, we already have enough examples. I think that we should be able to legally carry anywhere LEO are permitted to carry. With the only restricted areas, being secured areas of jails and prisons, and secured areas of an airport. Even off duty, LEO can carry in courtrooms, even if they are party to a case, not connected with their job duties, including divorce, child custody, civil lawsuits etc. Off duty LEO can carry into any public school in Texas, professional, college, and high school sporting events, and TABC posted 51% premises.

They are not required to perform any additional firearms training by law, and are only required to meet the minimum standards of TECLOSE required continuing education courses. Each department may set different standards. Our record of being law abiding, far outweighs that of LEO, but we are still regarded, as somehow less competent. Please understand, I am not trying to bash LEO, I used to be one, so my experience with the requirements, is first hand.

So to answer your question, we already "give up" far too much, while still being denigrated to second class citizen status, by the general public, and lawmakers. JMHO

At the risk of sounding like some left coast liberal dimocrat, I'm pretty cool with the laws as they are. I do not OC and nowhere that we ordinarily frequent are off limits to our CC's. Nether our medical nor financial facilities are posted and we don't do school or court house functions. Any place that we may possibly visit that is 30.06 posted gives a choice of whether to disarm or go elsewhere.

In summation, I don't see no need to give up nothin'. YMMV?

Why should we have to give up anything? If a property owner doesnt want you to carry, they ask to leave but with the understanding that if anything ever happens, they can be held liable.

Jusme wrote:I don't think we need to "give up" anything. Requiring more training, for a constitutional right, flies directly in the face of "Shall Not Be Infringed", of which, we already have enough examples. I think that we should be able to legally carry anywhere LEO are permitted to carry. With the only restricted areas, being secured areas of jails and prisons, and secured areas of an airport. Even off duty, LEO can carry in courtrooms, even if they are party to a case, not connected with their job duties, including divorce, child custody, civil lawsuits etc. Off duty LEO can carry into any public school in Texas, professional, college, and high school sporting events, and TABC posted 51% premises.

They are not required to perform any additional firearms training by law, and are only required to meet the minimum standards of TECLOSE required continuing education courses. Each department may set different standards. Our record of being law abiding, far outweighs that of LEO, but we are still regarded, as somehow less competent. Please understand, I am not trying to bash LEO, I used to be one, so my experience with the requirements, is first hand.

So to answer your question, we already "give up" far too much, while still being denigrated to second class citizen status, by the general public, and lawmakers. JMHO

I think this basically sums it up for me. I completely agree. Our law abiding record speaks for itself as LTC holders.

Lynyrd wrote: Property rights issues are the real sticking point. I'm not willing to "give up" anything in exchange for my 2A rights. But, at the same time, it's going to be very, very difficult (if not impossible) to say that a property owner does not have the right to control what guns are allowed on their property. Private property, is just that, privately owned property and I for one would have great trouble with any government entity telling me what I can and cannot allow on my own property. It's already bad enough that Texas says it owns all the wild game on my property, and in some states they saw we don't own the water on our property. Thank goodness Texas is that communistic.

Regarding the part I bolded, the reality is that you, as a private property owner do not have the right to prevent anything from coming onto your property that you can't see. You have the right to tell anyone to leave (as long as they are not in a protected class), but you can't legally keep them from carrying anything onto your property that you can't see, no matter how distasteful that item might be to you personally, or how offensive you might find it to be. I can legally walk into a Synagogue with a Nazi swastika necklace under my shirt. If someone discovers that I have it, they can ask me to leave. But they can't have me arrested even if they posted a sign saying I wasn't allowed to bring it in the building.

Guns are the only legal item that is singled out for legal exclusion. I am all for private property rights, but why the fixation on this one thing?