TexasCHLforum.com

I wanted to follow up on my last post regarding SB173 to focus on some of the specific dangers of this bill.

Most of the attention directed toward SB173 deals with the detrimental effect on CHL holders, but the scope of this bill is far broader. Even with an “exemption� for CHL holders, SB173 is a bad bill.

As broadly written, SB173 applies not only to public primary and secondary schools, but to all public and private schools, colleges and universities. Since “schools� and “educational institutions� are not defined, SB173 will also apply to non-traditional schools like trade schools, real estate schools, “business� schools (as distinguished from colleges with business degrees), etc. Recall also that prohibited locations set forth in Texas Penal Code Section 46.03, including the additional locations created by SB173, do not require the posting of a 30.06 sign.

It should also be noted that the proposed new Section 46.03(a)(7) applies not only to parking areas “owned or leased by a public or private schools . . .� as set out in Subsection (7)(A), but also to any parking areas “routinely used by persons attending an activity that is sponsored by a public or private school . . .� Subsection (7)(B). [Note the “or� between Subsections (7)(A) and (7)(B).]

The combined effect of 1) applying the new provisions to all public and private schools; and 2) not limiting it to parking areas owned or leased by public schools creates a huge area of prohibited locations never envisioned. Further, since a 30.06 sign will not be required, citizens will unknowingly venture into these areas and be faced with arrest and felony prosecution.

A few examples show the absurdity of the effects of SB173. Assume a rather large strip center or mall has a private real estate or driving school as one of its many tenants. Due to the scope of SB173, the entire parking lot will be off limits, if it is “routinely used by persons attending an activity that is sponsored by [the] . . . school . . .� Section 46.03(7)(B). A person driving onto the parking lot to go shopping or have lunch would be subject to arrest and prosecution for a felony.

SB173 also amends Penal Code Section 30.06, making its provisions expressly applicable to CHL holders, as set forth above.

Even if SB173 is amended to exempt CHL holders and narrow its geographic scope, it will still be a bad bill. There are legitimate reasons for non-CHL holders to have a long gun in their car while in school parking areas. For example, why should a mother or father be subject to arrest and felony prosecution for merely dropping their child off at school with a rifle or shotgun in the car?

College students under 21 years of age should not be denied the means of protecting themselves when they are on the road between school and home. These distances can be significant for students attending school far from their homes. Often, these trips are made after dark and by females traveling alone. Surely, we have not forgotten the tragedy that befell a 19 year old college student in Tyler last week. (This one really hits home for me, as I have a niece attending a university over 200 miles from home and I do not want her totally defenseless driving to and from work at night, and home for holidays and Spring Break.) Since all firearms are prohibited in the students’ dorms and other school buildings, if their cars are also made off limits, then these students will be defenseless.

I have focused primarily on SB173's detrimental effect on the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, but there are also legitimate sporting reasons for having firearms in a car or truck in a school parking lot.

SB173 is a bad bill that cannot be fixed.

Regards,
Chas.

I agree, it is surprising to see Senator Lindsay apparently supporting SB173. Sen. Lindsay has been a very good friend to gun-owners. He carried the Senate bill that prohibited governmental suits against gun manufacturers and took a good bit of heat for doing so. It was also surprising to see Sen. Harris introduce SB173, as he too has an excellent voting record since 1991.

I think a short discussion of how most bills get filed may be of help. The vast majority of bills filed are drafted by a Senator’s or Representative’s constituents, or by legislative counsel in response to constituents’ requests. With a legislature that meets for only five months every two years, there simply isn’t enough time for the elected representative to do all of the research and bill drafting. The serious work on a bill starts when it is assigned to a committee. It is quite common to see a bill’s author offer significant amendments to his or her own bills and sometimes even kill them. The research, drafting, evaluating, amending, additional research and cross-checking bills is an on-going process throughout the entire legislative session, or until a bill is passed, killed, or dies in committee. While in a perfect world we’d like to see all Senators and Representatives personally familiar with every word in, and the scope of, the bills they file, it does not and cannot work that way in the real world of time constraints. So much for the refresher course in Government 101. I apologize for boring those of you who knew this already, but it was a real learning experience for me when I first got involved 25 years ago.

SB173 is has the same goal as HB243 introduced by Rep. Ray Allen in the 2003 Session. That bill had been requested by a particular school district, allegedly to enable it to protect their schools by making certain on-campus arrests possible. No one can seriously argue that Representative Ray Allen is anything but one of CHL’s greatest friends and supporters. He is a CHL Instructor and has a perfect record of voting with CHL holders over the years. Nevertheless, the above-described procedures resulted in him introducing HB243, then when he turned his work efforts to that bill and came to understand its full impact, he let his own bill die in committee.

Is this what happened to Senator Harris? Is this how SB173 came to be introduced this Session? I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I find it quite interesting that Sen. Harris’ Senatorial District encompasses Rep. Allen’s House District. While not definitive, it sure looks to me like the same school district was up to their old tricks. Most of us will respond when someone talks about the safety of our children. When the dust settles, the bill is fully and fairly evaluated, and input from citizens is received, I trust the school district’s shenanigans will again be rebuffed.

Only time will tell if Sen. Harris will take the same action, or should I say inaction, as did Rep. Allen in 2003. Hopefully, the sentiment we are hearing from his staff is an indication of what we can expect.

I also suspect that Sen. Lindsay will take a closer look at SB173 and, based upon his past support of gun-owners and CHL holders, choose not to support the bill, even if Sen. Harris allows it to be reported out of committee.

I am not saying we should not contact these Senators and others. Indeed we should let them know this is a bad bill; one that cannot be fixed. Its impact is far broader than appears at first blush. When we voice our opposition, I would respectfully suggest that we do it in a manner that, when appropriate, acknowledges their long-standing support of gun-owners and CHL holders and requesting that their support continue by opposing this bill. If your Senator has a history of opposing gun rights, like Royce West, then there is no past history to praise!

Sorry for the length of this post and thanks for considering these points.

Chas.

Warhorse545 wrote:Didn't they tweak the original CHL law to allow pick up too and from school with a CHL? Seems this is taking a huge step back.

You are correct, that is why the definition of "premises" set forth in Texas Penal Code Section 46.035(f)(3) was adopted in Section 46.03(c)(1). This is most definitely a step backward.

I have read on a newsgroup that Senator Harris' office is stating that they intend to amend the bill to exclude CHL holders, but I find this statement rather curious. His bill amends not only Section 46.03, the general section prohibiting all firearms from certain locations, but also Section 46.035 that applies solely to CHL holders.

This is a bad bill that possibly can be improved, but it cannot be made into a good bill. But take heart, it's a long way from being law and there are many dragons in those woods.

These comments are solely my own and do not represent the official position of any other person or organization.

Chas.