Why is there a need to limit our 2nd Amendment rights within DMS?
Signs will not stop crazies from shooting up the place, and this only serves to disarm those who would otherwise have a chance to defend themselves or others.
I oppose this BoD meeting item. I encourage others to join with me.
I would suggest attending the meeting to voice your concerns to them. I believe the intent of this was to prevent people from open carrying, as in:
Considering quite a few members have CHLâs, I donât think they intend to stop those from âconcealedâ carrying.
They look like nice, law-abiding people to me. Since TX requires a background check and licensing, I wouldnât be worried at all.
Unfortunately, Iâll be unable to attend the BoD meeting tonight. I can provide a GPG-signed statement with my objections, but this forum is the best place to discuss and gather supporters (and opponents) before the meeting.
While I cannot make this BoD meeting because of work, I too oppose this item. I do not plan on open carrying, at DMS, but do not want to see the 30.07 sign posted, as that applies strictly to individuals who have been licensed by the state to carry a pistol.
Open carrying of rifles and long arms as pictured, is already and has been allowed for a long time now, and has not caused any issue at DMS that I have heard of. A simple no guns allowed sign would prevent open carrying of rifles, but not prevent open or concealed carry of pistols by LICENSED individuals.
Please note, I do not want to see any anti gun signs posted, as I am an enthusiast of our second amendment rights.
Considering that we have rfid enabled locks, and cameras to stop random people from entering the building Iâm not sure what the point of the sign would be anyway. I think that, in truth, making it well known that members are permitted to carry will be a deterrent to potential thieves, especially considering the perceived abundance of valuables in the building and its 24 hour accessibility. Should a person bring a gun to the space and carry in such a way that others feel threatened then we could ask them to put it away or leave.
Really? You donât think it could be seen as a show of power? If I had a gun on my back and was arguing with you, you wouldnât feel threatened?
Regardless, the sign they are seeking approval to put up only prohibits open carry. CHL holders can still concealed-carry.
Open carry of pistols is limited to people with CHLs anyway. I could open carry a rifle and have the same argument with you tonight, not having a CHL at all
Has this become a problem at DMS? Bear in mind, the sign would cause licensed CHL holder to be disallowed from performing gunsmithing activities on pistols at the space. It would have no effect on rifles at all by any member.
If there has been no documented problem, then this item is merely a political expression masquerading as problem solving.
I strongly object to any political expression (for or against) with regards to any and all legal activities involving firearms, in any context whatsoever. The mission of the Makerspace is making things and educating - not political activism for or against ANY cause.
Why would I get into an argument with a man carrying a rifle at the Dallas Maker Space? I have more sense than that, first off, and second if there was something we needed to argue out, then Iâd ask you to put the weapon somewhere else. If this hasnât been an issue thus far, why turn it into one at all? If someone is angry and wants to come shoot their fellow makers, then that sign will do exactly nothing to help resolve the matter.
As long as you leave the gun holstered or on your back, then no I donât feel threatened, nor should anyone else. (unless the personâs body language is threatening in which case the presence of a gun is irrelevant).
I share Zackâs concern about this agenda item, particularly considering that as far as I know we have not have anything occur at the space to spark this new rule making. This is especially concerning since I have brought up problems with rules, such as the current rule that the chair of logistics can essentially make their own rules about their use of of storage space with no restrictions. I believe the board tabled that issue because âit wasnât a problem yetâŚâ Which sounds like something to be applied here as wellâŚ
Seconded, what is prompting this? Weâre a large group of people and weâre not all going to agree on something like this. The write up on the Wiki suggests weâre only doing this because a new law is going into effect. It feels like weâre pouring gasoline on a fire here folks.
I think it a certainty that if someone is openly walking around the space with a gun that will be disturbing to some members. Unless the person doing so has some reason beyond âIâm exercising my 2nd amendment rightâ then that person is not being excellent to other members. Shame on them, they are also pouring gas on the fire with their actions.
I am also highly opposed to this. I feel this should be put to a member vote rather than left to a board decision.
Actually, they tabled that item because you were not present and no one knew what you were talking about 
Then you can show up to the meeting and voice your opposition.
That wasnât what the meeting minutes reflected, nor should it have since I discussed my concern with a couple of board members before the meeting.
off-topic, take it to another thread or discuss it in person, please.
IF the person is only walking around to âexercise their rightsâ, I might tend to agree with you; however, it also isnât âexcellentâ to let oneâs own paranoia about fire arms interfere with another members use of the space.
At the space we have;
a reloading group,
a machine shop where myself and several members have worked on firearms.
In addition, the current location is in a somewhat unsavory area, and many of us are there at odd hours, the PRIMARY reason people legally carry guns is to provide self-protection. It is now a fact that open carry is legal in Texas, and it isnât âbeing excellentâ to one another if we start to try and restrict members well before any potential problems occur. Particularly considering that the most likely problem is members being âscaredâ of other members⌠I would hate to see that precedent applied to other things members might be scared ofâŚ
Sorry, but very much on topic. The point is that the board is currently considering a rule to address something that isnât a problem YET, when in the past they have set precedent that they wish to wait until a problem actually arises before they add rules.
@bscharff you may have all the free time in the world to cause problems for other people but I donât have time to make every board meeting to argue over a bunch of BS,. I would rather spend my free time with my family doing the things we love then a bunch of adults who cannot work their differences out without going for the throat. I am done with that BS. Yall have a good night arguing with each other Iâll be out with my family enjoying spending time with my son.
Someone should propose the opposite sign, you arenât allowed to enter DMS unless you are carrying a firearm
This guy would vote for that:
