Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

Thread: Getting Ready for 2013

  1. #26
    Lone Star Veteran Gator5713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Aggieland, Texas, USA
    Posts
    593
    Anybody (Rush?) feel like putting together some type of 'form' letter that we can start sending to the AG and our legislators?

    Unfortunately, I agree that quiet and deep is the way to go here. We all saw what happened when we tried to openly push OC and CCC at the same time. While we supported CCC, people were scared of getting the 2 confused and it became a fight between the 2 instead of a unified front as it should have been!

    While I don't like the idea of licensed OC, I will take it as a step in the right direction. Anything we can do to get OC at least started is a BIG step in the right direction, then we can work on the clean-up as we go... The truth of the matter is that its plum hot here and its just plain easier to OC than CC! Quite frankly, I don't want to have to worry about which side of my gun my shirt tail is on and if the bottom of my holster is exposed or not...

    As for the 30-06 signage... Isn't that just for 51% alcohol establishments? Therefore, all 51% establishments should already have the signs, and nobody else should have them. I could be off here, been a while since I read that particular law.

  2. #27
    Regular Member ()pen(arry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Edmonds, WA
    Posts
    629
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator5713 View Post
    As for the 30-06 signage... Isn't that just for 51% alcohol establishments? Therefore, all 51% establishments should already have the signs, and nobody else should have them. I could be off here, been a while since I read that particular law.
    No. In Texas, with or without a license, it's illegal to carry a concealed weapon inside any establishment that derives 51% or more of their revenue from the sale of alcohol to be consumed on the premises. In order to assist licensees, such establishments are also required to post a 51% sign.

    Absolutely unrelated to that, with or without a license, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon into an property with a proper and properly-posted 30.06 sign.

    Two completely separate provisions.

  3. #28
    Lone Star Veteran Gator5713's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Aggieland, Texas, USA
    Posts
    593
    Thanks () (.
    I just went back and re-read 30.06... I've been away from the gun forums for a while and other than general (individual) conversations with folks I haven't been a super activist lately, so I'm back here now and probably gonna have to re-fresh some of my memory and update with some changes that have happened since I've been gone!

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by ()pen(arry View Post
    Absolutely unrelated to that, with or without a license, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon into an property with a proper and properly-posted 30.06 sign.
    Just to get hyper-technical, 30.06 only applies to licensees.

    Any signage, whether 30.06-compliant or not, is adequate notice for an unlicensed person. For both licensed and unlicensed persons, the penalty for criminal trespass while in possession of a dangerous weapon is a Class A misdemeanor (up to a year in jail), but they'd actually be charged under different sections. It would be 30.05 for an unlicensed person.

  5. #30
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870
    This is my take on the subject. Exception from 46.035a is already available under circumstances warranting the possible use of deadly force to prevent an impending criminal threat.

    Well..... there are also many circumstances under which any reasonable person might well think an ounce of prevention may be worth a ton of cure. I call these occasions threshold events.

    A license holder should not be subject to criminal penalty for merely not concealing the fact that they are armed. What nation keeps its navy, air force, and infantry hidden from the view of potential adversaries ?

    What does "in case of confrontation" mean ? Does a person have to wait for the assault to begin before they can reveal that they are armed and able to prevent it ?

  6. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Richardson
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    Well..... there are also many circumstances under which any reasonable person might well think an ounce of prevention may be worth a ton of cure. I call these occasions threshold events.
    I've had such an event myself while open carrying in Tennessee. The mere sight of my firearm being on my belt caused an individual, who I could tell had just made up his mind to violently mug me, to change his mind and return to his original course. I didn't have to reach for it or even say a word. This example, of course, doesn't mean open carry all the time, rather that occasionally it is the most non-violent way to resolve a dangerous situation before it goes over that "threshold".

    So far, I agree with most of what's been said here. I'm pretty optimistic about this session. People who expected things to happen last year and didn't get involved are getting involved now. I'm definitely looking forward to a stronger, more civil, more unified movement this time. Thanks for not being all negativity, guys. It's hard to find that on any forum, much less a gun rights forum.

  7. #32
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    870
    As is frequently mentioned "incremental" legislative measures are more successful in the long run.

    Ravendove's experience in Tennessee is not all that unusual. It is impossible to document a "crime" that never occurred because of the presence of some deterrent factor.

    This is the "incremental" approach that needs to be introduced into the next legislative session. This is precisely WHY 46.035a is BAD law. I would even argue that the term "open carry" should be avoided if at all possible. Don't allow the opposition to frame the issue as an "OC" effort. You are simply seeking to REMOVE a criminal penalty for conduct that is neither disorderly, or alarming to any reasonable person not intent upon criminally confronting you- and is precisely what Article 2, Section 23 provides for - to KEEP arms - notoriously if need be - in the lawful defense of one's self for the purpose of PREVENTING CRIME.

    Repeal Section 46.035 (a)(h) - "With a view to prevent crime" - Cited right out of the text of the Texas Constitution Article 2, Section 23.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •