Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Lubbock, TX council votes down effort to ban gun carry at council meeting!

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    I wonder how open carry at Texas meetings will go over ?

    --

    http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story.asp...nav=menu69_1_3

    11/6/08
    Guns Still Allowed at City Hall After Vote To Ban Them





















    Guns are still allowed at Lubbock City Hall. This comes after the city council rejected a resolution that would ban concealed weapons at public meetings. Two council members proposed to post a standing sign prohibiting concealed handguns just outside council chambers. The onlyexceptionwould be commissioned peace officers.

    The idea to ban guns at public meetingscomes from council members, Floyd Price and Linda DeLeon. DeLeon tells NewsChannel 11she has seen one council member with a gun in these chambers. "Iam very uncomfortable knowing that other than commissioned peace officers, there are guns in our meetings as we speak," DeLeon said. NewsChannel 11 asked,"today there are people with guns?" "Oh yeah," DeLeonadded.We asked if they weresitting on the dais? "Possibly," DeLeon said.

    DeLeonargued under the state's penal code councils can ban concealed weapons during public meetings. "It's something very important for us to honor with a sign and I've seen it at other buildings and we need to protect our employees here from those other than commissioned peace officers," DeLeon said.

    Floyd Price added, "We get some pretty heated people while we are doing business for the city of Lubbock. SoI don't think this is unnecessary. I think this is a necessary thing we need to look at."

    But not all council members agree. Councilman John Leonard says approving a gun ban notice would work against Texas law. "If we were to post these notices and made that requirement and then enforced that through a ticket or other process it would be defensible and would not be enforce," Leonard said.

    Councilman Paul Beane followed and argued concealed handguns make the chamber a safer place. "If this passes this chamber will become a far more dangerous place than it is right now,"Beane said.

    After Leonard and Beane both publicly spoke out against the ban, NewsChannel 11 asked if they carry concealed guns during council meetings. "Iam not going to comment onwhether I'm a concealed permit holder. That would negate the purpose of being a concealed permit holder," Leonard said.

    "No," Beane said. NewsChannel 11 asked, "You don't?"I do not," he replied. "ButI do have a concealed carry permit."

    The vote was two to five against the resolution. Price and DeLeon voted in favor.Todd Klein, Paul Beane, John Leonard, Jim Gilbreath and Mayor Tom Martin voted against it.





    Tell us what you think...
    KCBD.com Message Boards




    Sound off on news or current events on our message boards!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    233

    Post imported post

    Since they are not allowed in "COURT" then why not have a "VALET" stationed near the door to the Chamber to receive the firearms and re-issue them when the person leaves the chamber same as the system that was used in the days of "YESTERYEAR". That way you have your firearm when you enter the building and when you leave the building-just not in the Meeting Chamber. Seems feaseable! Also go with "OPEN CARRY"(STATE WIDE, of course)that way you know who forgot to leave it at the door!!! This could serve multiple situations.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ellis County, Texas, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    No valet and no posting of 30.06 is better. Carry if you want to. I wish all councils were as wise as Lubbock's. Most here in D/FW *DO* post an enforcable 30.06 sign as they are allowed to do under the penal code. Many city hall buildings also contain the municipal court, so many cities purport to ban carry in the whole building on those grounds. Grrr!

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    SA-TX wrote:
    No valet and no posting of 30.06 is better. Carry if you want to. I wish all councils were as wise as Lubbock's. Most here in D/FW *DO* post an enforcable 30.06 sign as they are allowed to do under the penal code. Many city hall buildings also contain the municipal court, so many cities purport to ban carry in the whole building on those grounds. Grrr!
    But do those jurisdictions posting signs have to have an ordinance to back it up?

    If so, do they all have ordiances to back it up?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    OK, someone has to say it.

    How can "thirty aught six' be the identifer of the posting ban statute?

    Oh, the irony....

    I guess the only way it could be more ironic, is if the town's name were Springfield...
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    How can "thirty aught six' be the identifer of the posting ban statute?

    Oh, the irony....
    My next favorite, if only it weren't off by one digit, is the federal law against violating someone's civil rights under color of law: 49 USC 1983.

    If only it were 1984...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Hutch/Wichita ~ Missing Littleton, Co :(, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    91

    Post imported post

    HR1022 anyone?

    AC

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ellis County, Texas, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    But do those jurisdictions posting signs have to have an ordinance to back it up?

    If so, do they all have ordiances to back it up?
    No. The penal code makes no such requirement that I can find. Originally, meetings of government bodies were off limits by statute. Then, it was changed so that they have to post 30.06 (as well as churches, hospitals, and amusement parks). Finally, the Legislature stripped government bodies of the ability to post 30.06 signs in most cases, but most who have opined on this think that this is a case where they legally can.

    In short, they MUST post to legally ban CHL holders but no ordinance or any other action is required of them.

Posting Permissions

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