0318noguns2

The pro-gun rights momentum in the Texas Legislature keeps rolling on. Today the senate approved a bill that would fine local governments for posting “no guns” signs on public building where firearms should be legal. As dallasnews.com reports, “The proposal would impose fines of up to $1,500 for a first offense and $10,000 maximum for repeat violations.” If this keeps up, maybe some day Texas gun laws will be as firearm-friendly as Arizona’s. Or Vermont’s. Or Missouri’s. Some day. Maybe.

Recommended For You

17 Responses to TX Senate Approves Bill to Fine Govts. for ‘No Guns’ Signs

  1. How about eliminating the ban on conceal carry in 51% businesses?
    Several recent news stores prove that criminals use this law to target them for robbery and ignore the 51% signs on the door. The stories made the news because a cch holder ignored the sign too and stopped the criminals, then promptly left before police could arrive and arrest him.

    • I am actually quite surprised that no one has attempted to change the law to be more inline with dui standards. If I am allowed to walk into a bar with car keys in my pocket, a gun should be no different.

      • So God forbid you have to shoot and your BAC is .08 or over, you go straight to jail? Be careful what you wish for.

      • I have no objection to you walking IN-to a bar with your car keys concealed on your person; the relevant question ought to be why society has no objection to your walking OUT-of the bar brandishing your keys at your openly-driven 72.0 calibre destructive device.
        Apparently, society has learned nothing from Luby’s Cafe.
        Remove the 51% rule and allow the bar-keeper to post a 30.06 sign if he prefers. Should he not post then everyone who enters his place of business is on notice of the likely presence of drinking men carrying. They may enter at their discretion or patronize another bar with a 30.06 sign.
        Pedestrians, drivers or even diners at Luby’s have no means of avoiding DWI drivers nor crazy men with destructive devices or guns.

    • HB308, up for hearings on the 24th, would make conceal and carry in 51% establishments legal. Would also allow for carry at places of professional and school events.
      And yes, the “intoxicated” standard in Texas Penal Code for unlawful carry should definitely have a limit. It is currently officer discretion for arrest. One of the Constitutional Carry Bills actually did this, but it does not have a good chance of passage this session.

      • While I do like the objectivity of a BAC measurement itself, ultimately BAC limits are as arbitrary as magazine limits.

        Even the measurements can be in error, either through human error or mechanical failure, and end up in massive dismissals, as we’ve seen in Houston in recent years. Do we really want to subject additional freedoms to the spotty competence of government functionaries?

        Also, as a practical matter, on the side of the road, isn’t virtually every criminal law up to officer discretion regarding arrest? He has a gun and a badge, backed by thousands more just like him. You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.

        Flawed as it may be, Texas’ intoxication standard is defined in law and does describe the condition satisfactorily for juries to assess the facts and compare them to the legal standard. If an improvement is to be made, then let it be that all officers have body cams and all cruisers have dash cams. Then we can all see and hear the evidence for ourselves as to how much control an alleged intoxicated individual has over his physical and mental faculties, while the fun police and their faulty equipment can go find some real crime to fight.

        • Look I’m not advocating drinking and shooting or anything like that BUT why do we need a law against intoxicated carry anyways? Really think about it. Carrying a gun while Drunk hurts nobody. It’s actions that you might take(bad aim , bad judgement , etc) that we are concerned with. Now the same argument can be made for drunk driving laws BUT there is a difference. We used to not have drunk driving laws( in fact being drunk was a DEFENSE to vehicular manslaughter in some places ). And we had a HUGE amount of people killed and injured by drunks on the roads. We still do in fact. So we decided in response to a problem to legislate to say even though driving drunk is not an evil act, it is such a risky act that it is criminally negligent. How well that’s worked colored to harm reduction and education is very debatable but it was a response to a real problem.
          So I ask you how many permit holders. Law abiding citizens are getting drunk and commiting violent or dangerouse acts with their firearms? Very few I imagine. And frankly the people who do are unlikely to be stopped by the intoxication standard.
          How about we say that it’s criminal to be I toxics red while carrying a fire arm AND brandishing it or handling it in unsafe way in a public place. That way we don’t pubish the harmless guy who has three drinks at a bar on the way home from work while carrying, has no safe way to store his gun and he’s I. A cab to ride home without bothering anybody. Or worse yet have some anti gun cops outside bars stopping drunks for public intoxication as try get in a cab or designated driver car and seeing they have a permit arresting them for harmless carry of a holstered gun or one stored in their car.

        • Cuteandfuzzybunnies: +1

          My friends, father, grandfather, great grandfather, nor I used to disarm when we drank. Interestingly, I never operated a motor vehicle on public roads if I even had one beer. Operating the vehicle would’ve been analogous to shooting the firearm. Merely sitting in a vehicle or merely carrying a gun was no big deal while drinking. I would love to see a return to common sense.

      • The limit should be high AND it should require that person brandish the weapon or behave recklessly. We don’t want some wierd ass checkpoint or a new dui industry to pop up.

  2. And this bill is great as well. The current law states that municipalities and property owned by them cannot ban legal conceal and carry. However, cities still try to ban carry by posting unenforceable 30.06 signs anyway since the law provides no penalty, and this bill actually gives the law some teeth.

  3. I’ve seen signs like this not accompanying the 30.06 signs on private businesses and I tend to ignore them.

    I have also seen 30.06 signs that don’t meet the law’s description of them but obey them anyway. Then take my business elsewhere.

  4. Good job, Texas! IMHO, this is much better than how we have to get compliance in Ohio. Here, one must contact the agency, show it the error of its ways, carry anyway, and then bring lawsuit if arrested or fined.

  5. Texas is an oppressive, big government state. No different from NY, NJ, or MA. They just happen to like guns. But try filming a police officer and see how that goes.

    Texas’ Government is just as dangerous as the Governments in the Northeast and California, it just opposes different things.

    Don

  6. Actually, the fine should be levied against the person in charge of the building or, if no one is in charge directly, the city manager or mayor. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *