TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote:This is the issue that got my vote as the number one priority this legislative session.

Governor Perry will sign this, and a half-million CHL holders will thank him and all the legislators who made this happen.

And guess what? This “little interest group” was an active, instrumental part of the equation. Scores of us repeatedly called and faxed and emailed our Texas legislators.

We made a difference!

Thanks to all of you.

And not only CHL holders, but anyone who carries under the MPA or can legally own the firearm!!!

I believe it relates to the fact that bills returning from conference committees must be distributed to legislative members at least 120 hours (5 days) ahead of any vote. This would eliminate the 120 rule and allow them to do the up/down vote on this bill earlier.

CobraRon wrote:

artx wrote:Looks like House appointed conference committee members....but the website doesn't list who they are (yet?)!!! This one has me nervous.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=SB321

They show it on the "History" tab:
House Conferees: Appointed (05/19/2011) Kleinschmidt (Chair) | Fletcher | Geren | Guillen | Hardcastle

Kleinschmit was the Author, and the others were joint-authors, so this is a good committee too!

RHenriksen wrote: Just curious: who selects the conference committee members?

If we're lucky, Charles and Alice.

causeican wrote:The following people have been selected for the conference.

Senate Conferees: Appointed (05/17/2011) Hegar (Chair) | Birdwell | Patrick | Wentworth | Whitmire

I sure hope they are on our side.

These are all folks on out side.

dac1842 wrote:Now shows passed the House as amended! Next stop the Governor's desk!

Not yet. See the link above for the next phases it has to go through before it hits the Gov's desk.

Maxwell wrote:On the Texas Legislature web site HB681 is listed as "Relating to the forfeiture of good conduct time from inmates who file frivolous applications for writ of habeas corpus."
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup ... Bill=HB681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Does anyone know what happened here?

SB 321 still appears to be the Parking lot bill, but has not passed the House vote yet.

Your link on 681 is to a past session (79R). Make sure you are on 82R. Here is the link for that bill number in the current session http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup ... Bill=HB681" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ac-mech wrote:please don't tell me this bill is dead......

Not at all.

stompme wrote:My best resolution to this conversation is to use stealth window tint from 3m as the law will require, and use a dag-um sun shade......Resolved! Of course if you work for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing...might want to re-think this.

Not always an option. Many employers have written in their guidelines that your vehicle is subject to search when on their property. If you refuse to allow search, then you can be terminated. So, we need SB 321 / HB 681 to get to the House floor for vote and passed.

boomstick wrote:What needs to happen to get this out on the floor for a vote before time runs out?

Calls to all of the House Calender Committee members respectfully requesting that HB 681 (this bill) and also HB 750 (campus carry) get to the floor for debate and vote quickly.

RHenriksen wrote:I made it to about half of the committee members offices in person yesterday.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Keith B wrote:Charles, do you know who is there to testify in favor of the bill? I know we have 7 of the 9 committee members that are co-authors, and the two that aren't are not signed on to any bills, so have a majority, but hope we have a few in there to testify in favor of it.

Sorry Keith, I just saw this post.

Chas.

No problem Charles. The two ladies I figured would be there, were.

thr_wedge wrote:Actions: (descending date order)
Description Comment Date Time Journal Page
H Left pending in committee 02/28/2011
H Testimony taken/registration(s) recorded in committee 02/28/2011
H Considered in public hearing 02/28/2011
H Scheduled for public hearing on . . . 02/28/2011
H Referred to Business & Industry 02/21/2011 434
H Read first time 02/21/2011 434
H Filed 01/18/2011

So if I read this correctly, the committee listened to it and now it is pending. Will need to make some calls and faxes this week, let's keep the pressure up until it gets out of committee!

Yes, the action now is to continue to call, thank the committee members for their support, and RESPECTFULLY ask that they help get this moved out to the Calendar Committee so it can be scheduled to go to the floor for a hearing and vote. The earlier it is voted on and passed in the House, the better opportunity it has to get through the Senate and get on their calender.

Charles, do you know who is there to testify in favor of the bill? I know we have 7 of the 9 committee members that are co-authors, and the two that aren't are not signed on to any bills, so have a majority, but hope we have a few in there to testify in favor of it.

Texaspublican wrote:I called every committee member today and also wrote them a letter. This bill infringes on Private Property Ownership. As a business owner, I find this kind of legislation offensive. I have no issues with guns inside of vehicles while on my property, but I have a serious issue with people who write such stupidity as this. Any bill that forces a private property owner to do something against their wishes is a Socialist Bill...
This bill is as good as dead! Texas business will not allow this to happen. The assumption that Legislative Committee will kill this bill makes me laugh. This bill has been thrown in the trash three times and it keeps comming back.
Get a clue! Texans do not want law's that infirnge on private property ownership!

The problem is, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can't have it both ways with the way current laws are written. You want to be able to ban what you want on your property, but you allow guns for employees. That is fine on your property, but there is a method for others who don't want employees to have guns on their property to restrict and not only fire them, but have them arrested if they do it properly.

This bill is talking about employee rights also. As the employer you have an ethical and moral responsibility to make sure your employees are safe. This includes when they travel to and from work. Without this law in effect, employers have a legal means to force employees to be unarmed and be potential victims if they encounter a self defense situation that warrants it. That is just plain wrong.

Now, you say prohibit search of a vehicle. Well, that may be well and good, but that tramples on employer rights more than this issue does. What if an employee is suspected of having drugs in their car? I think you would want the capability of having them searched wouldn't you? What about a bomb? Same thing.

Bottom line, this bill is about keeping employers from trampling on employee rights by allowing them to have something they can legally own in their vehicle. Many employees have no other option than to park in the company lot. And don't even go down the road of 'you can go somewhere else to work' cause that dog don't hunt for many who have put in 20 - 30 plus years at a company. So, unless you can offer a better alternative solution to the issue, then I suggest you move on. Also, I don't think your one measly phone call will outweigh 1000's of calls from those who support employee rights.