Constitutional Carry confusion leading to increased arrests in the Lone Star State?

[leVieux]

? So, current CL holders can CC into which of those places ?

(Sincere question)

leVieux

 

[leVieux]

That is not how I understand the new law, If I write in crayon "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" then anyone other than LEO is in violation, even a verbal warning to leave if carrying a firearm is valid.
Yes you have a second amendment right to keep and bear>’ arms, but NOT on my private property or place of business without my permission.
Also I do not want you or anyone else carrying firearms into my grand children's school or a court room if I am on jury duty ... some common sense is required.

>

Please indicate where “common sense” is found in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” ?

I can recall when we all carried in commercial flights and NOTHING EVER HAPPENED !

IF Todd Beamer just could have had his .45 !

Why do you presume that someone like this Old GrandPa Physician ex US Army Officer would be likely to harm your Grandchildren ?

Disarm CRIMINALS, crazies, terrorists; leave the rest of us alone !

Trust your neighbor, not your politician. The AMERICAN WAY !

leVieux
.

 

[toddnjoyce]

? So, current CL holders can CC into which of those places ?

(Sincere question)

leVieux

I don’t understand what you’re asking but don’t make this harder than it needs to be.

For places that sell alcohol for off premises consumption, the only controlling signs are .05/.06/.07. For an LTC holder with a handgun, only .06/.07 are applicable.

For on premises consumption, 51% (red) signs still apply if TABC determines the establishment meets the red sign requirements. How TABC determines that has changed as well, so the best bet is to always check the TABC website if in doubt.

 

[leVieux]

Thanks !

 

[toddnjoyce]

That is not how I understand the new law, If I write in crayon "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" then anyone other than LEO is in violation….

Please show where in the statute that’s the case.

 

[MountainGirl]

@toddnjoyce


Regarding this: (from your post)

"For places that sell alcohol for off premises consumption, the only controlling signs are .05/.06/.07. For an LTC holder with a handgun, only .06/.07 are applicable."

As an LTC is no longer required to carry concealed, is any of that ^^^ affected?
And if not, would non-LTC holders be deemed as LTC holders for enforcement purposes?

And again, thanks.

 

[toddnjoyce]

@toddnjoyce


Regarding this: (from your post)

"For places that sell alcohol for off premises consumption, the only controlling signs are .05/.06/.07. For an LTC holder with a handgun, only .06/.07 are applicable."

As an LTC is no longer required to carry concealed, is any of that ^^^ affected?
And if not, would non-LTC holders be deemed as LTC holders for enforcement purposes?

And again, thanks.

This brochure is probably still the best and most current reference to answer your question.

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/UQ735LH6/at/rt23f5cg7rwqqmjmggtc9np/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

ETA, their interpretation of 30.05 on pg 14 is ultra-conservative.

 

[jordanmills]

@toddnjoyce

Just to confirm my understanding of your post - (sorry so pablum)

1.There was a law regarding carry into liquor stores
2.There was a law/regulation requiring liquor stores to post re #1
3.The law re #1 was repealed, making
4.The law/regulation re #2 moot
5. As there is a law/regulation requiring liquor stores to accurately post-
6. Liquor stores who do not remove the post re #1 - are in violation and could lose their license.

Is that the gist?
Thanks ~

Close. There never was a 1. Just a 2. But otherwise you're right.

 

[MountainGirl]

Close. There never was a 1. Just a 2. But otherwise you're right.

Wow. Oh, I believe you, just - wow.

To me, natural sequence would be: Make a law, then make signage to inform re same.

So..the only place the verbiage exists is on the signs.. rather than in a statute/code/etc.

Okay then. Thanks

 

[toddnjoyce]

Wow. Oh, I believe you, just - wow.

To me, natural sequence would be: Make a law, then make signage to inform re same.

So..the only place the verbiage exists is on the signs.. rather than in a statute/code/etc.

Okay then. Thanks

The verbiage regarded the sign and the sign wasn’t limited to liquor stores. And it all fell under the Alcohol Beverage Code.

 

[jordanmills]

The verbiage regarded the sign and the sign wasn’t limited to liquor stores. And it all fell under the Alcohol Beverage Code.

Right, except there was no prohibition or penalty like the sign describes. The law just required stores to post the sign.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Right, except there was no prohibition or penalty like the sign describes. The law just required stores to post the sign.

Yes, and I should have clarified that earlier.

I wish more folks spent time educating themselves on the statutes. Think about the founders, most of whom were self-educated and certainly with much less availability of the resources necessary to educate themselves.

Frustrating.

 

[rotor]

Because that notification no longer exists in law, anywhere it’s displayed is violating the law and jeopardizing their liquor license.

For my curiosity are you saying that it is now against the law to post a blue sign because that section of the law was repealed? What's the penalty for posting?

 

[toddnjoyce]

For my curiosity are you saying that it is now against the law to post a blue sign because that section of the law was repealed? What's the penalty for posting?

I’m not saying there’s a statute prohibiting someone from posting a blue sign next to their swimming pool. I’m saying there is zero basis in the statute from an enforceability standpoint. Add to it TABC has penalties for failing to display required signage. Merely pointing out a retailer has failed to remove signage that has been repealed is a valid complaint and can lead to a TABC inspection.

Is it a death sentence? No. But it can lead to death by a thousand cuts.

 

[MountainGirl]

This brochure is probably still the best and most current reference to answer your question.

https://cdn.brandfolder.io/UQ735LH6/at/rt23f5cg7rwqqmjmggtc9np/TXCC-Guide-Single-Pg-Digital.pdf

ETA, their interpretation of 30.05 on pg 14 is ultra-conservative.

Thanks for that link, appreciated.

That said - there's one thing that doesn't make sense, to me.

Without getting into the weeds here - why would the same reasoning that keeps an LTC from carrying NOT also apply to a non-LTC person?

Anyone's reply would be most welcome.
Thanks!

 

[toddnjoyce]

Thanks for that link, appreciated.

That said - there's one thing that doesn't make sense, to me.


View attachment 365960


Without getting into the weeds here - why would the same reasoning that keeps an LTC from carrying NOT also apply to a non-LTC person?

Anyone's reply would be most welcome.
Thanks!

History and stupidity.

 

[candcallen]

No to what, exactly?

Eli

He's referencing the difference between colleges and elementary middle or High schools and limitations regarding the definition of campus, school grounds, buildings etc. Rules for colleges and universities are different than elementary middle and High schools.

If I understanding you both correctly.

When you say campus you are referring to colleges and universities not elementary middle and High school buildings. He is referencing the latter.

Am I correct in what you mean?

 

[Eli]

He's referencing the difference between colleges and elementary middle or High schools and limitations regarding the definition of campus, school grounds, buildings etc. Rules for colleges and universities are different than elementary middle and High schools.

If I understanding you both correctly.

When you say campus you are referring to colleges and universities not elementary middle and High school buildings. He is referencing the latter.

Am I correct in what you mean?

I've referenced both, the rules have changed a LOT since the CHL came into being in the '90s.

Eli

 

[Eli]

Thanks for that link, appreciated.

That said - there's one thing that doesn't make sense, to me.


View attachment 365960


Without getting into the weeds here - why would the same reasoning that keeps an LTC from carrying NOT also apply to a non-LTC person?

Anyone's reply would be most welcome.
Thanks!

Because the Legislature *REALLY* fouled a lot of things when they (unexpectedly) passed 'Constitutional Carry' and didn't review all implications.

Eli

 

[reddog]

Thanks for that link, appreciated.

That said - there's one thing that doesn't make sense, to me.


View attachment 365960


Without getting into the weeds here - why would the same reasoning that keeps an LTC from carrying NOT also apply to a non-LTC person?

Anyone's reply would be most welcome.
Thanks!

This is my take, .06 and .07 signs were already in place, CC comes into effect and instead of changing those signs they simply added the .05 sign. So places that had either or both the .06 &.07 displayed will now have to add the .05 signage to cover all of the bases. Even though this seems to confuse the situation some it does give the public place the option to display only the .05 signage and allow LTC holders entry.