TexasCHLforum.com

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

St1cky wrote:How is SB299 any better for us than 1304?? I see a few words added and nothing that sounds helpful. Basically if im out in public and I reach up and scratch my head and my shirt tail rises above my gun handle then I've still committed a crime. Anyone care to explain a scenario that shows how 299 is an improvement??

If I'm understanding the rules, it's better from the perspective that it had already passed teh Senate so voting on it is a done deal, other than the Governors signature. No need for the Senate to vote on the HB or any kind of reconciliation committee.

I also like the additional verbiage of "in a public place". Not sure it really matters but the more limit on when the exposure is a crime, the better.

Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.

So Chas, under current law, it's something like this:
Someone is breaking into my truck in the daytime, I can't tell if they're armed, I could only draw on them and tell them to stand down if they produced a weapon or I felt that my life was threatened, which would be hard to prove.

But if SB299 passes as-is, it would be something like this:
Someone is breaking into my truck in the daytime, and if my goal is apprehend the individual or stop the crime, I can draw my weapon and stop the individual, although deadly force is not warranted (at least not yet).

And this is a very general example, I know that other technicalities can be present with theft.

Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.

jerry_r60 wrote:

St1cky wrote:How is SB299 any better for us than 1304?? I see a few words added and nothing that sounds helpful. Basically if im out in public and I reach up and scratch my head and my shirt tail rises above my gun handle then I've still committed a crime. Anyone care to explain a scenario that shows how 299 is an improvement??

If I'm understanding the rules, it's better from the perspective that it had already passed teh Senate so voting on it is a done deal, other than the Governors signature. No need for the Senate to vote on the HB or any kind of reconciliation committee.

I also like the additional verbiage of "in a public place". Not sure it really matters but the more limit on when the exposure is a crime, the better.

Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.

TexCHLFan wrote:

SewTexas wrote:several of you seem to be blaming the Republicans as a party....I'm sorry, but I'm blaming one man, and one man only, Strauss. He's why most of these bills aren't coming up for a vote.

They new he had held fundraisers for Democrats.

Please give the details; I'd love to have this for future use. Which Democrats, when and where for the fundraiser?

Chas.

hillfighter wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Zoo wrote:If we can't get 3218 this year, I can't vote for any Republicans next year.

This is the first attempt at a bill that is controversial, so I'm not surprised.

True that, but it's third or fourth go around for campus carry.

If the Republican majority can't finally push through that table scrap this year, they don't deserve my vote. To be crystal clear, I'm saying if I can't legally carry at night class in 2014, I'll write in Santa Claus before I vote for anybody who chooses to affiliate themselves with the party that kills campus carry in back room meetings.

That's certainly your choice. Thankfully, few if any will follow you in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Chas.

Zoo wrote:If we can't get 3218 this year, I can't vote for any Republicans next year.

This is the first attempt at a bill that is controversial, so I'm not surprised. I had thee people look at it before Rep. Springer took it on. We have a much better chance next session, especially if the ground work is done during the off season. I've been wanting to file this bill for 8 years, so I assure you I want it as bad as anyone. But this is the real world of politics.

Chas.

dac1842 wrote:Charles,
HB 2535 relating to church volunteers has been pending since 4/11. Is this bill dead?

If it isn't voted out tomorrow, then I believe it's dead.

Chas.

RX8er wrote:I'm sure most poepole don;t just copy and paste their emails but just in case, there is a slight error in Chas original post......

Charles L. Cotton wrote: HB801 - Requires Hunter Education Courses to include warnings about rounds leaving the property; also requires the posting of "School Nearby" signs. - OPPOSE.
Please call and/or fax your Representative and ask them to support HB 47, 48, 508, 698, 801, 972,

I'm guessing he meant to move 801 on the oppose line only. It's just listed in two places and I'd hate for someone to send their support for 801.

OOPS! Thanks for catching my mistake. Yes, oppose HB801.

Chas.

JJVP wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:What happened to HB 700 that if passed allowed CHL holders the option to open carry?

Nothing, it is still in Committee without a vote. Someone reported that Rep. Lavender's website indicates HB700 will not get a committee vote.

Chas.

So bottom line, no campus carry . . . , right?

Not necessarily. Watch the floor debate.

Chas.

nightmare69 wrote:What happened to HB 700 that if passed allowed CHL holders the option to open carry?

Nothing, it is still in Committee without a vote. Someone reported that Rep. Lavender's website indicates HB700 will not get a committee vote.

Chas.

mewalke wrote:I just got an email from the NRA-ILA about SB 1907 being considered as early as tomorrow. I searched the forum and didn't see any posts on it. According to the NRA-ILA's summary it sounds like a positive one. Is this one we should include in our emails to our Senators?

Yes! It's basically a version of the employer parking lot bill that protects students from being expelled.

Chas.

Saturday, May 4th, is being dubbed "Gun Bill Saturday." The following gun bills will be debated on the House floor:

HB47 - Reduction of CHL class hours (SB864 will likely be substituted) - SUPPORT!
HB48 - Removes the requirement to take a renewal class to renew your CHL. - SUPPORT!
HB485 - Relating to the CHL fee for peace officers and military veterans - Neutral
HB508 - Creates large civil penalty for governmental entities posting unenforceable 30.06 signs. - SUPPORT!!
HB698 - Requires DPS to establish an alternative to digital fingerprints by L1 for people living more than 25 miles from L1 - Support.
HB801 - Requires Hunter Education Courses to include warnings about rounds leaving the property; also requires the posting of "School Nearby" signs. - OPPOSE.
HB972 - Comprehensive campus-carry. SUPPORT INCLUDING ALL PRO-GUN FLOOR AMENDMENRTS.
HB1009 - Creation of new "school marshal" program. The bill is too narrow and will prevent thousands of volunteers - OPPOSE.
HB1304 - Changes code from "failure to conceal" to intentionally "displays" a handgun; and corrects McDermott decision. SB299 will likely be substituted - SUPPORT!!!!
HB1421 - Creates an option to sell certain seized firearms rather than destroy those guns. Support
HB1349 - Prevents DPS from requiring the disclosure of social security number on CHL new or renewal applications. - Neutral.

Please call and/or fax your Representative and ask them to support HB 47, 48, 508, 698, 972, 1304, and 1421, including the Senate substitutes of SB864 for HB47 and SB299 for HB1304. Please ask them to oppose HB801 (too costly for no gain) and HB1009 (too restrictive). It's your call on the "neutral" bills.

Thanks,
Chas.