Need YOUR legislative input

[karlac]

2. I'd like to see some sort of legislation making it burdensome for an entity to ban guns. Now I know this goes against some of my other beliefs. (Sorta). But if you're going to ban guns, 30.06, you aught pay a tax an expensive tax, register, demonstrate your ability to secure the premises in order to infringe on people's constitutional rights.

Would not that be infringing on their rights? I can see your point with preemption of State laws by municipalities and other State agencies, but not businesses and private "entities".

 

[stdreb27]

Would not that be infringing on their rights?

No worse than the ADA...

 

[karlac]

No worse than the ADA...

LOL. Touché. There's that.

 

[stdreb27]

LOL. Touché. There's that.

But seriously,
Some here take a hard line when it comes to someone's property. And I do tend to agree.
However public space, has all sorts of rules and regulations you have to comply with so you can open your private property to the public for access. From fire codes, to safely building inspections, to ADA compliance.
My statement is tongue in cheek to a point.

 

[Younggun]

No worse than the ADA...

The American Dental Association?

 

[stdreb27]

The American Dental Association?

American with disabilities act.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

American with disabilities act.

AKA Americans who make a living suing businesses act.

 

[Shorts]

The thread seems to have veered towards CHL. While I'd like more room there, I don't think that's what Old Cowboy wanted. I thought the purpose was to brain storm to work on language that pre-empted and protected us overall from more gun control legislation like the things put forth after a highly publicized mass shooting. Better CHL laws will only affect those who want to carry or already carry, but they won't do much to protect gun rights of all citizens.

 

[Younggun]

The thread seems to have veered towards CHL. While I'd like more room there, I don't think that's what Old Cowboy wanted. I thought the purpose was to brain storm to work on language that pre-empted and protected us overall from more gun control legislation like the things put forth after a highly publicized mass shooting. Better CHL laws will only affect those who want to carry or already carry, but they won't do much to protect gun rights of all citizens.

Or the gun we want to carry.


We are never more than 1 election cycle away from New York or CA style gun laws.

 

[Shorts]

Or the gun we want to carry.


We are never more than 1 election cycle away from New York or CA style gun laws.

Umhm.

A CHL bill and a general pre-emption bill would have to be presented in two separate proposals. I don't see the committee sitting there and listening much less voting on a bill. Remember the last session where the antigun chairman slow rolled carry bills so that they never got up to be heard? A proposal weighted with both CHL and general preeption language stands no chance of getting heard because it will be asking for too much (in the eyes of antis or those on the fence).

 

[karlac]

I see it a bit differently.

CHL, as distasteful as it is for it to be necessary, is arguably the biggest foot-in-the-door we currently have in Texas against anti's slamming that door shut on our 2A rights.

We need to be bolstering and building on what has been gained/regained thus far, and any attempt/effort to dilute those gains with CHL in Texas, at any level, arguably needs to be a consideration in discussion outlined in the OP's first post.

Not to mention that there seems to be some misunderstanding and misinformation with regard to CHL issues, even among members of this forum who are arguably better informed than the average citizen.

... and being properly informed on any issue dealing with the 2A is paramount in keeping it from further destruction.

 

[Shorts]

I see where you are coming from. I'm looking at it as not all gun owners are CHLers. What I try to be careful of is not thinking in ways that would make CHLers a protected class while leaving gun owners/nonCHLers out. I think of my own family, not all gun owners are CHLers. Doesn't seem right that they are left out or lose out while CHLers move forward.

We need better CHL laws, and those be separate propositions so they may stand by themselves to cover CHLers.

We need pre-emption laws and those would be separate propositions so that they cover everybody.

Do you have some ideas/examples on how including CHL in a pre-emption proposal would cover everybody? I'm having trouble seeing how combining both into one would work.

 

[stdreb27]

The thread seems to have veered towards CHL. While I'd like more room there, I don't think that's what Old Cowboy wanted. I thought the purpose was to brain storm to work on language that pre-empted and protected us overall from more gun control legislation like the things put forth after a highly publicized mass shooting. Better CHL laws will only affect those who want to carry or already carry, but they won't do much to protect gun rights of all citizens.

I know, didn't mean to derail the topic. Just annoyed at the whole chl process at the moment.

I'm more in line with vaquero. We don't need more laws but the repeal of bad laws. To take it a step further protections from cities that would take steps to limit my ability to carry. Like San Antonio.

Laws are useless unless someone enforces em...

 

[karlac]

Do you have some ideas/examples on how including CHL in a pre-emption proposal would cover everybody? I'm having trouble seeing how combining both into one would work.

Didn't say anything other than (IMO) ongoing CHL issues should be a part of the discussion asked for in the OP.

Edit: we may be talking at cross purposes here if you're talking about preempting Federal statutes. My remarks are strictly in regard to State preemption issues. Sorry.

 

[karlac]

To take it a step further protections from cities that would take steps to limit my ability to carry. Like San Antonio.

Precisely my point! And that falls absolutely and squarely in the domain of "backdoor gun control", and Texas preemption statutes in the OP.

 

[jordanmills]

How about something to protect the ranges from environmentalist threats?

No laws by municipalities that are tougher than the state on ammo for sales?

Protection of Internet sale of ammo.

State tax free day on the purchases of guns and ammo before hunting season.

Shall not ban ammo by composition or type.

NIIIIICE. Haven't heard of this one before. You have my complete support on that (yeah for what little it's worth).

 

[Shorts]

I know, didn't mean to derail the topic. Just annoyed at the whole chl process at the moment.

I'm more in line with vaquero. We don't need more laws but the repeal of bad laws. To take it a step further protections from cities that would take steps to limit my ability to carry. Like San Antonio.

Laws are useless unless someone enforces em...

Oh certainly!
Any pre-emption proposals should be broad to protect all lawful acts including those of CHL. My opposition was to making pre-emptions solely based on CHL.

 

[Younggun]

Umhm.

A CHL bill and a general pre-emption bill would have to be presented in two separate proposals. I don't see the committee sitting there and listening much less voting on a bill. Remember the last session where the antigun chairman slow rolled carry bills so that they never got up to be heard? A proposal weighted with both CHL and general preeption language stands no chance of getting heard because it will be asking for too much (in the eyes of antis or those on the fence).

Look at what happened in Colorado.

Yes, they had recalls and such but the laws aren't repealed yet and they are having to fight in order to gain lost ground. Seemed to have come out of nowhere.

All it takes is 1 election to flip Texas blue (and have a devastating impact here and across the nation).

Preemption language only stops laws stricter than standing state laws from being passed, it does not stop a state law from being passed saying your 1911 suddenly takes illegal hi capacity magazines.

So in my view, we are never more than 1 election cycle away. Having laws in place to make it more difficult to ram crap down our throats before we can put a stop to it would be a huge advantage should we catch a bad cycle.

 

[jordanmills]

CHL, as distasteful as it is for it to be necessary, is arguably the biggest foot-in-the-door we currently have in Texas against anti's slamming that door shut on our 2A rights.

IMO something to watch out for is being dogmatic about 2A rights. Yes we shouldn't need a CHL, but like you said it's a good foot in the door. It also gives us recognition in other states that don't recognize the second amendment, and gives us additional protection against individuals that are not protected by the second amendment such as requirements for clear signs on private property.

 

[jordanmills]

I've seen a few suggestions about repealing 30.06. That would be bad. 30.06 is what's keeping general trespass laws from being applied against people for carrying under the authority of a CHL, and is what defines notification and signage requirements. Without it, any "no guns" sign, regardless of size, wording, language, clarity, etc., could be used to charge someone with trespassing.

In fact my opinion is contrary to my general idea of adding fewer laws. 30.06 is one of the few sections that should be expanded. I see lots of places that are not posting clear signs, but they (property owners and on site officers) seem to think they're enforceable. Signs with thin letters posted on glass, or "signs" that are translucent frosted glass over clear glass covered by tint. So we need that clarified. 30.06(c)(3)(B) should be expanded to require languages of English, Spanish, and Vietnamese, specify the width of "block letters", change "contrasting colors" to "black on white or white on black", specify a height of at least two inches, explicitly exclude signs which include use of frosted glass or tint, and require posting on or immediately adjacent to each door that might be used by any reasonable person for access by the public.