UPDATE 2nd: 1-15-13

[RoyGBiv]

So y'all don't have to search for it..
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillNumber.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB507" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... 00507I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... 00508I.htm" 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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

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.

[RoyGBiv]

Gracias.!

[2firfun50]

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.

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.

[A-R]

No you wouldn't. Reckless is a higher standard for prosecution to prove than negligence.

IANAL

Edited to add:

PC 6.03 (d)  "Criminal negligence" A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of 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 the failure to perceive it 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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

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.

[SewTexas]

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.

really?!? a mistake does not mean you have to create legislation!!!!

Oh my blood pressure, my blood pressure...... ahhhh, that's better...

[Jasonw560]

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.

When I read the synopsis, that's the first thing I thought of.

Bravo on 508.

[steveincowtown]

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
Etc.

I am no where near a legal scholar, but if the following were added:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to certain laws relating to carrying concealed handguns on
property owned or leased by a governmental entity; creating an
offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 30, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 30.061 to read as follows:
Sec. 30.061. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF CONCEALED HANDGUN
LICENSE HOLDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "License holder" has the meaning assigned by
Section 46.035(f).
(2) "Public employee" means an employee or appointed
officer other than an independent contractor who is paid to perform
services for a state or local governmental entity.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person is a public
employee or a private individual or company operating on government propertywho provides notice under Section 30.06 to a license
holder carrying a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H,
Chapter 411, Government Code, that entering or remaining on a
premises or other place owned or leased by a governmental entity is
prohibited and:
(1) the license holder is not prohibited from carrying
a handgun on the premises or other place by Section 46.03 or Section
46.035; and
(2) the public employeeor a private individual or company operating on government property is reckless as to whether a
license holder is prohibited from carrying a handgun on the
premises or other place.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
with a minimum fine of $250. If it is shown on the trial of the
offense that the notice was provided by written communication, each
day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation.

It is not just the government folks that need to be put subjected to the fine, it ALL those who are posting 30.06 incorrectly on government property.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[RottenApple]

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.

Charles, I think he's talking about private persons posting 30.06 signs on public property. Take, for example, the gun shows at Dallas Market Hall. It's not a city employee (I'm assuming) that is taping up those huge pieces of paper with the 30.06 wording on it. It's most likely a gun show employee and/or management. So, if I understand him correctly, he's wanting to know if this will prevent situations like this.

[JP171]

Also Charles alot of city buildings downtown use private security companies such as the theatre district buildings and parking lots/garages the museum district also uses private security companies

[steveincowtown]

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.

Charles, I think he's talking about private persons posting 30.06 signs on public property. Take, for example, the gun shows at Dallas Market Hall. It's not a city employee (I'm assuming) that is taping up those huge pieces of paper with the 30.06 wording on it. It's most likely a gun show employee and/or management. So, if I understand him correctly, he's wanting to know if this will prevent situations like this.

This is what I was trying to convey.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[baldeagle]

So would this make a 30.06 sign at a gun show on public property illegal?