What "Shall Issue" state is the most strict?

[Tubby45]

************************************************** *
So the big question here is, does the last sentence refer to OFF DUTY officers that HAVE a CPL, or does it refer to Other CPL holders.

See post #72 for the specific statute, the exemptions towards the bottom. It explains it.

The way I read it OFF Duty officers in the list that have a CPL can carry in pistol free zones, and I think they can carry concealed.

Yes.

The rest of us can not, the way I read this.

Open carry only if you have a CPL.

Of course you may have found a different AG opinion, but the one I seem to recall reading also was specifically addressing a licensed private investigator.

There is no AG opinion on this issue. The closest one is the reserve officer with CPL openly carrying is not brandishing, also defined brandishing as the term set forth by common law (to wave or display in a threatening manner) which also put forth solid ground that open carry, by anyone, is not brandishing. An LPI is covered under the above statute. Note it only applies to the actual investigator whom is licensed, not an employee of such.

I eagerly await your post with more information because I would like to be able to stop at my wife's place of work while armed, but she works in a hospital.

If you are a joe schmoe, you can open carry in a hospital if you have a CPL. The worst case is they ask you to leave, because it's private property. There is nothing illegal about it. If you are a licensed PI, you may carry concealed in the pistol free zones with your CPL.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[JJVP]

I gave my source. Since you can't go there yourself and download the PDF:

•*on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.
•*On the premises of a Hospital licensed under the Health and Safety Code
•*On the premises of a nursing home licensed under the Health and Safety Code
•*Amusement parks. Amusement Parks means a permanent indoor or outdoor facility or park where
amusement rides are available for use by the public that is located in a county with a population of more than one million, encompasses at least 75 acres in surface area, is enclosed with access only through controlled entries, is open for operation more than 120 days in each calendar year, and has security guards on the premises at all times. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Yes, I could go and download the PFD file. In fact I already had it. What you are missing is the asterisks in front of a few sites (see above). Those are no longer prohibited sites. They can be off limits to CHL's only if the are posted per 30.06. 30.06 has a specific language, it has to be both in english and spanish and the letters must be 1" tall in contrasting colors. A "gun-buster" sign or a "no guns allowed" sign mean nothing to a CHL in TX. Anyone can prevent a CHL from carrying at their place of business by posting the appropriate 30.06 sign. The 2007, I believe, legislature removed the asterisk sites from the prohibited places. Rather than just removing those sites, which might make things clearer, they opted to add an addendum requiring the 30.06 signs. That was done on purpose, since the "antis" would have gotten the panties in a bunch if they had just deleted those prohibited places. The addendum served the same purpose, but was somewhat hidden.




"So, you can carry into a school and the secure area of an airport?"

"Open carry with a CPL, yes in both."

Please go ahead and try to go through the security check at an airport (secured area of airport) with a gun and let me know how that works out for you.

[JJVP]

JJVP:

I understand what you're saying about the "Federal Gun Free School Zones", however, the WAY you wrote it (in post #56) implied that it is against Fed. law to carry at a school. That is what my statement was regarding.

You are correct. I should have been more clear on my statement.

[JJVP]

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was struck down by SCOTUS in United States vs Lopez. Also, the law you're quoting above specifically states that it does not apply if you have a permit from the state you're carrying in.

That is partially incorrect. Although the 1990 GFSZ law was indeed ruled unconstitutional, Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding wording placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element, that the "firearm has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce

[peckman28]

Isn't that what I said?

Yeah I need to learn to read again. Sorry.

[Tubby45]

OK so to get this right section 750.234d applies to guns in general, and CPL holders are not restricted, and section 28.425o applies to concealed, so your saying CPL holders can open carry in gun free zones.

Yes to all of this. It's right in the statute and backed by the MSP.

Further, 28.425o section #4 says that off duty LEO, motor carrier officers, sheriff posse, etc can carry concealed in these areas.
Thats interesting, but I still wouldn't want to have to be cuffed, have my gun confinscated and go to court to prove it all over again. Until I see open carry more common in these areas I think I'll just go unarmed when I have to.

That choice is yours alone and I honor and respect your decision, whatever it may be.

[HoustonRaven]

I would say Maryland by far.

IIRC, it's a shall issue state but the conditions of such issue have become so restrictive, it's virtually impossible.

[64zebra]

First I want to reiterate/repeat what Retsupt99 said.....some people need to take a chill pill.
(moderator imitation on)
It seems we're getting more and more posts on here that are like people putting chips on their shoulders and being smart you-know-whats with their posts/replies, and having a whizzing contest with their information. Its not one person, its several, not only in this thread but in several sections I've seen lately.
We don't need that stuff on our forum, info can be shared and points be made without the attitude. Its in our forum rules for a reason....we have one of the best sites on the net and we need to keep the family atmosphere on here without the stuff thats been seen on here lately.
(moderator imitation off)

What you are missing is the asterisks in front of a few sites (see above). Those are no longer prohibited sites. They can be off limits to CHL's only if the are posted per 30.06. 30.06 has a specific language, it has to be both in english and spanish and the letters must be 1" tall in contrasting colors. A "gun-buster" sign or a "no guns allowed" sign mean nothing to a CHL in TX. Anyone can prevent a CHL from carrying at their place of business by posting the appropriate 30.06 sign. The 2007, I believe, legislature removed the asterisk sites from the prohibited places. Rather than just removing those sites, which might make things clearer, they opted to add an addendum requiring the 30.06 signs. That was done on purpose, since the "antis" would have gotten the panties in a bunch if they had just deleted those prohibited places. The addendum served the same purpose, but was somewhat hidden.

correct, except the asterisk places were already in place w/30.06 restrictions, the only part that changed was the 'meeting of gov't entity' was added to the 30.06 list in 2007

"So, you can carry into a school and the secure area of an airport?"

"Open carry with a CPL, yes in both."

Please go ahead and try to go through the security check at an airport (secured area of airport) with a gun and let me know how that works out for you.

exactly....no matter what a state's CPL/CHP/CHL laws are....you cannot legally carry into the secured area of an airport
anyone in MI that attempts to open carry into the secured area of the airport will meet a very harsh surprise

as for school gun free zones......the zone is not applicable if the person has a permit from the state in which the school is located
this means the 1000' gun free zone isn't applicable, however as sigmanluke pointed out....states can allow carry into schools by their laws and is not restricted by fed law if so allowed

[peckman28]

I would say Maryland by far.

IIRC, it's a shall issue state but the conditions of such issue have become so restrictive, it's virtually impossible.

I believe Maryland is considered a "may issue" state, which, as you point out, really means "no issue". Maybe one day they will take the freedoms of their people seriously.

[Landor]

Michigan is a lot better than FL or TX are.

If Michigan is restrictive then I sure don't feel it. Wayne County (Detroit) might be a bit restrictive but the rest of the state is just fine if you ask me. We even have the Castle Doctrines.

[FastDraw]

To some of the above posters...

Please send $10 for some 'chill pills' to retsupt99 in Central Florida.
Free postage, delivery in just a few days...

Hey ret, I just did a fast forward through this thread.... and want to help you out. If you run out of chill pills please send the money to Fastdraw in Colorado.. and I will send out the chill pills ....

[rmodel65]

still see no ones posted a state more restrictive than Georgia.....

b) For the purpose of this Code section, "public gathering" shall include, but shall not be limited to, athletic or sporting events, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, publicly owned or operated buildings, or establishments at which alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises and which derive less than 50 percent of their total annual gross food and beverage sales from the sale of prepared meals or food. Nothing in this Code section shall otherwise prohibit the carrying of a firearm in any other public place by a person licensed or permitted to carry such firearm by this part.

[SIGP250]

I would say Maryland by far.

IIRC, it's a shall issue state but the conditions of such issue have become so restrictive, it's virtually impossible.

No argument there except I think they are still working on the "shall issue" part so Maryland was not considered.

[Eagleks]

Our state, was much like many of you are saying AND many businesses posted at first.

Then , 2 yrs ago they clarified some issues on restaurants vs bars.
Then, last yr..... they changed it and many places restricted were OK if not posted.
Then, this year, they have one now that will become the law July 1, that basically.... outside of the Govenor's mansion and a very few places, it's legal to carry unless they have it posted with the AG approved signage.

So, I suggest if it's bad... work on your legislature.... elect strong 2A one's, and get the laws improved. Having a few organizations within the state willing to help "nudge" them, also helps.

What it is today, does not say it has to stay that way. Join forces.

[Tubby45]

If Michigan is restrictive then I sure don't feel it. Wayne County (Detroit) might be a bit restrictive but the rest of the state is just fine if you ask me. We even have the Castle Doctrines.

With full firearm preemption, Wayne can't be more restrictive. Castle doctrine has always been common law in MI and upheld in every case, but it's nice having it in statutes.