TexasCHLforum.com

Jeff Barriault wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

I know of one. The Bayou Vista government building (hosts police station, fire department, city hall, MUD offices, etc.) has 30.06 sign at entrance to building. It is my understanding the sign is invalid unless the city is having a meeting upstairs. I'd like to see it removed and a "non permanent" sign put up only when public meetings are in session.

Jeff: I meant I don't know of any 30.06 signs posted by private persons on government property other than at gun shows. The signs you listed were undoubtedly posted by a public employee or at the instruction of a public employee and under the Bill, this will be a violation for each day when no official meeting of a governmental agency is ongoing. That means only temporary signs can be used, just like you want.

Chas.

So few 30.06 signs are actually posted on government property by non-public employees that it's not worth risking passage of the bill to address those few people. Also, if a private security guard actually hangs the 30.06 sign at the direction of a public employee, then that public employee would violate the provisions of this bill.

30.06 signs posted on government property by private persons are not enforceable and they tend to be few in number and of limited duration. Gun shows are great examples. In fact, I can't recall seeing such a sign anywhere other than at a gun show.

Again, the bottom line is the bill would not pass if it extended beyond public employees.

Chas.

steveincowtown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB508 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Why should HB508 only apply to a public employee? This won't solve the improper of posting of 30.06 on government property as most of the issue with this relates to private companies operating on public property (either permanently or through a short term lease) such as:

Gun Shows
Fort Worth Alliance Airshow
6th Floor Museum at Dealy Plaza
Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo
Fort Worth Zoo
Various Museums on Public Property
Dallas Love Field

I guess I don't understand your argument. Government property is controlled by public employees, not private companies. I disagree with your statement that most of the unenforceable signs are posted by private companies operating on public property. The vast majority of signs are posted by government employees on places such as schools, city hall, public libraries, government hospitals, zoos, etc.

If this bill were expanded to cover private persons who post unenforceable signs it wouldn't pass.

Chas.

2firfun50 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:TPC §6.03(c): A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:So y'all don't have to search for it..

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB507" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that 507 is bad.

I'd like to know what the definition of "reckless" is in 508..??
Is that defined someplace else? If not, the bill appears moot.

I'd struggle to define "reckless" in the context of posting a wrong sign.

(2) the public employee is reckless as to whether a
license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun on the
premises or other place.

I would rather see "negligent" instead of reckless.

That's not a legal option for a culpable mental state. "Criminal negligence" is but "reckless" isn't going to be a problem.

Chas.

TPC §6.03(c): A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:So y'all don't have to search for it..

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB507" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree that 507 is bad.

I'd like to know what the definition of "reckless" is in 508..??
Is that defined someplace else? If not, the bill appears moot.

I'd struggle to define "reckless" in the context of posting a wrong sign.

(2) the public employee is reckless as to whether a
license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun on the
premises or other place.

South Texas RGV wrote:Regarding HB507, I'm wondering whether the sponsor had in mind the late-2011 shooting of two middle school students down here in the Valley, in Edinburg. The last I recall reading, the shooter was someone sighting in a rifle in a field adjacent to the school. He sent stray rounds onto a basketball court while kids were out shooting baskets. I believe he's still awaiting trial.

The bill does seem ill-considered for the reasons already mentioned, but since Guillen's district reaches down this way (not including Edinburg), perhaps this gave rise to the proposal.

You are exactly right. It's a case of an unfortunate situation leading to a bad bill.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Charles, is this a big problem? Shots crossing educational facility boundaries? Seems a rather odd bill.

The other bill is HB 508, not HB 208. I like it.

Thanks for catching the typo.

I consider HB507 a bad bill because it is a strict liability crime. There's already a provision in the Wildlife Code that makes it a strict liability crime to fire a shot that crosses a property line, but it's only a Class C Misdemeanor. I don't like it, but at least the penalty is minimal. With HB507, a person need not intentionally, knowingly or recklessly discharge a firearm in the direction of a school. All that matters is that they pulled the trigger.

If HB507 passes, someone could fire a round and be subject to a Class A Misdemeanor (1 year in jail and/or $4,000 fine) and loss their CHL for 5 to 7 years even if:
1. They had no idea a school are within range or the round fired ricocheted multiple times causing it to cross school property; and
2. No one was injured and no property damage occurred;

HB507 is a bad bill.

Chas.

HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB508 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.