(warning, this video may be disturbing)
2 Likes
There is already legislation in effect that allows CHL holders to sue local government entities that illegally suppress lawful carry thru 30.06 signs. I don’t see it as a big stretch to successfully sue a corporation for injuries incurred in a “gun free/helpless-victim” zone where proper security is not provided.
1 Like
When it comes to the threat of a lawsuit against a private business, the issue is far from clear cut. In essence the business can conceivably be sued in both cases. By which I mean sued for preventing self-defence as well as suing for allowing harm from gun violence. And while I can’t find my references, I believe both types of suits have occurred, but have no idea about the outcome.
The end result is we should probably ignore this concern, since it falls relatively equally on both sides of the issue, unless we want to spend even more money on attorneys then we already are.
2 Likes
I agree with you, but wanted to address Brooks statement.
2 Likes
This was what the board passed rather than posting 30.07 signs, with the implicit understanding that it would be less restrictive than 30.07.
First off, this issue wasn’t brought up because members were wanting to make DMS an open carry mecca of Dallas. It was brought up because a group of members want to limit guns at DMS at a higher level than is required by law. Second, I would propose that large members like myself suffer from being interpreted by other members as intimidating much like certain members may be intimidated by the sight of a gun. The reason we don’t have height limits on membership is that is an irrational fear. The lawful ownership and possession of a gun viewed as intimidation is also an irrational fear. Lastly, not every place that a gun is present should be required to be a gun range or gun club.
3 Likes
I agree with this. Short of a class or performing some work on a firearm or reloading ammunition, possessing a firearm isn’t integral to activity at the space. Open Carry hasn’t happened yet in the larger public space in TX, so it’s not like we would be impeding on a routine activity evwrywhere else by proposing policies that limit it at the space.
Let’s see what kind of policy that Alex and Allen hash out first. I have confidence that they can devise something that balances concerns all around.
1 Like
No, it’s just like a parachute. You don’t need one until you do.
3 Likes
In my experience implicit understandings are anything but. When two people have an implicit understanding, you usually have two completely different interpretations. The more people you add the less likely an understanding has actually taken place.
I will admit to being surprised by what Brooks said Allen’s stance was, so perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised by the outcome; however, if it includes any restrictions for something that hasn’t even been a problem to date I will campaign and vote against any board members who pass this. If we wait until a problem actually occurs, then I would support some reasonable restrictions.
1 Like
Guns are created for the express purpose of killing. Tall people aren’t born for the express purpose of killing.
That would be an unexpected contingency outside of one’s expected activities at the space short of what I mentioned - a class, gunsmithing, reloading, etc - readily covered by the CHL laws.
1 Like
I remember my school days when many of my friends would carry a prophylactic in their wallet “just in case”… Carrying a gun for self defence is much the same, and given the dubious location of the space and its surroundings, perhaps a bit more likely to be needed versus my friends’ protection
1 Like
I based my assessment on a good 90 minutes’ of vigorous discussion at the meeting and some asides later between Alex and Allen. I do not believe they’re going to produce something that pleases either extreme, but I also believe they can produce a satisfactory compromise.
Compromise when the differences are between rational (albeit unlikely) need and a emotionally driven concern over a perception is precisely the problem. Any compromise is something I believe many of us will hold board members accountable for at this stage. If we did, as we do with everything else, wait until an issue arises that actually requires some action then such concerns my not arise. The fact that this is being pursued without any factual basis for concern is the problem.
Guns are tools, they are created like all tools to facilitate an action. The action is the responsibility of the individual performing it. Guns don’t kill. A gun will not kill you by just being around.
4 Likes
Your lack of respect for the opposing view is infuriating.
The opposite argument about the lack of necessity of a sidearm could be made with the exact same words.
5 Likes
I am sorry, you perceive my statements as a lack of respect. I believe they are simply accurate.
The reasons people carry guns (legally) are driven by a real, but very unlikely risk of personal harm. Crime is real and the area the space is in seems to be shadier then where many of us choose to live, so I believe the risk is slightly larger in and around the space.
The reasons people regulate guns are driven by emotional beliefs that it will make them safer or as we have discussed on this thread more comfortable. I state they are emotional, a term I used instead of the more accurate term irrational, so as to avoid the perception of insult you have taken.
The reason I state these are emotionally driven and not real, is that such rules only affect those who abide by them. In other words the people who you don’t need to fear in the first place. Someone intent on harm doesn’t care you have a 'No guns" sign on the door. After all were any of the dead at Umpqua Community College, Sandy Hook, or Ft. Hood any safer because guns were posted as not allowed? Did the rules against their presence protect anyone? But passing such rules make people feel safer. That is an emotional response.
4 Likes
Can someone who is familiar with the new law clarify it for me?
Like a CHL the gun must be on your person and holstered at all times. There should never be the case where someone could leave a loaded firearm on a table while they worked on something else?
IMHO, gun safety is like driving. Everyone thinks they are good at it.
However, I also think it would be unfortunate to ban people from using the tools at the space to work on their firearms.
2 Likes
From what my perception is that it must be holstered in a shoulder holster or holster on the belt. You still can pull it until you intend to use it, as far as I know.
1 Like
Here is a good summary of the new law
and the detailed legislation
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00910F.htm
1 Like