2017 Legislative Priorities

[mojo84]

1.)My fear is the OCT/CATI and others will be beating the banshee for constitutional carry in 2017, and 308 or similar bill will take the same course as in 2015.

Speaking of beating the banshee, I wonder what Stickland is going to come up with this time around....

Unlicensed concealed and open carry and red light cameras so far.

[KLB]

Carrying anywhere LEOs can carry would be nice but is probably a bridge too far. As fallback provisions:

• Clarify that caterers should not post 51% signs;
  
  Clarify that local governments can't get away with excluding weapons from areas they consider private. The City of San Antonio has used that to exclude weapons everywhere except the lobbies of city buildings;
  
  Clarify that you can carry a legal knife or other weapon wherever you can carry a gun.

[TangoX-ray]

Carrying anywhere LEOs can carry would be nice but is probably a bridge too far. As fallback provisions:

• Clarify that caterers should not post 51% signs;
  
  Clarify that local governments can't get away with excluding weapons from areas they consider private. The City of San Antonio has used that to exclude weapons everywhere except the lobbies of city buildings;
  
  Clarify that you can carry a legal knife or other weapon wherever you can carry a gun.

We should model the change on Minnesota's knife laws.

• Knives with utility purposes are legal to carry.
  
  Knives that can be used as weapons are legal to carry as long as you do not have intent to harm others.
  
  It is illegal to recklessly use a knife that was designed to be a weapon.
  
  It is illegal to carry a knife that was designed to be a weapon (and not a tool) with the intent to harm others.

[ferguson]

How about legislation to prohibit insurance companies from imposing higher rates on businesses (or anyone) if they don't post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Forcing your customers to comply with the political will of the insurance companies by imposing excessive fees for not doing so is just wrong.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that excluding licensed concealed or open carry increase risk so there is no financial reason for charging customers more for not posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs is capricious of not discriminatory.

[KLB]

How about legislation to prohibit insurance companies from imposing higher rates on businesses (or anyone) if they don't post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Forcing your customers to comply with the political will of the insurance companies by imposing excessive fees for not doing so is just wrong.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that excluding licensed concealed or open carry increase risk so there is no financial reason for charging customers more for not posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs is capricious of not discriminatory.

I sympathize with the problem, but on principle, I don't want government telling insurers how to underwrite risk. That politicizes insurance, and the more we do that, the more we'll screw things up.

[mojo84]

How about legislation to prohibit insurance companies from imposing higher rates on businesses (or anyone) if they don't post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Forcing your customers to comply with the political will of the insurance companies by imposing excessive fees for not doing so is just wrong.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that excluding licensed concealed or open carry increase risk so there is no financial reason for charging customers more for not posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs is capricious of not discriminatory.

Do you have any evidence insurance companies are doing what you say they are? As of yet I have seen no one produce one shred of evidence indicating they are requiring businesses post no gun signs or charging higher rates.

[ferguson]

Do you have any evidence insurance companies are doing what you say they are? As of yet I have seen no one produce one shred of evidence indicating they are requiring businesses post no gun signs or charging higher rates.

I don't have correspondence from insurance companies to businesses but several business owners that I've talked to about their sign posting since Jan 1st told me that they were forced to by insurance, including the comoany my wife works for.

The company I work for, on the other hand encourages employees to be armed and the owner even occasionally brings in a CHL instructor for anyone who wants to get theirs.

If it's just business owners pushing their own agendas and hiding behind the skirts of "evil insurance companies" then thats a whole other thing. Ultimately, property rights trump 2A rights in Texas so if every propery owner decided to post a 30.06 and 30.07 sign we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves anywhere other than our own homes even though it is legal.

[Hoodasnacks]

Lower on the priority list, but I'd like to see an 18+ requirement for LTC instead of 21. College campuses are not the safest of places (as we saw last week at UT), and most attendees are underage for LTC purposes. The girl that was killed last week was 18.

I know a 20 year old kid that was an eagle scout, served a 2-year mission abroad serving others, etc., that is about to start at A&M. The second amendment applies to him as much as to me. Seems like his rights are being infringed.

[Papa_Tiger]

I would like to see a clarification to TPC 46.03 to fix the School Activity loophole that so many colleges are using to ban CHL where "school aged children are present".

I'd like to see something like the following:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):

(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building owned or controlled by the school on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless:

(A) pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institutionschool; or

(B) the person possesses or goes with a concealed handgun that the person is licensed to carry under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and no other weapon to which this section applies, on the premises of an institution of higher education or private or independent institution of higher education, on any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by the institution is being conducted, or in a passenger transportation vehicle of the institution;

Underlined text is removed, red text is added.

Educational institution is not defined in the statues and mostly seems to imply colleges or trade schools which if private will already be able to post 30.06/30.07 and we already have SB 11 for public and private colleges.

*Edited to get the text for 46.03(a)(1) that will be in effect during TX 85.

[mojo84]

Do you have any evidence insurance companies are doing what you say they are? As of yet I have seen no one produce one shred of evidence indicating they are requiring businesses post no gun signs or charging higher rates.

I don't have correspondence from insurance companies to businesses but several business owners that I've talked to about their sign posting since Jan 1st told me that they were forced to by insurance, including the comoany my wife works for.

The company I work for, on the other hand encourages employees to be armed and the owner even occasionally brings in a CHL instructor for anyone who wants to get theirs.

If it's just business owners pushing their own agendas and hiding behind the skirts of "evil insurance companies" then thats a whole other thing. Ultimately, property rights trump 2A rights in Texas so if every propery owner decided to post a 30.06 and 30.07 sign we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves anywhere other than our own homes even though it is legal.

I've said this is in other threads. After being in the insurance business for 20 years working with businesses of all sorts, this is not the issue some seem to think. I have never had it be an underwriting or loss control/risk management issue originating from the insurance company unless the business has onsite security guards, in the security business or sells guns. Even then, they did not require an insured business to post no gun signs or implement a no gun policy. They do review the safety policies and procedures to make sure there are adequate and appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure safety when the business is dealing with guns or armed security. In my experience, this has never included the prohibition of open or concealed carry nor has it resulted in significant surcharges or higher rates for non-gun related businesses or armed security firms.

I have seen some agents bring this issue up to create a rapport to advance a sales opportunity or create discussion points with an insured but that is different than an insurance company requiring something. That is just a sales tactic.

This is all based on my personal experience over quite a few years. If someone has credible evidence to the contrary, I have a keen vested interest in finding out as it directly effects me and my clients. I also recognize the insurance business is very fluid and changes all the time and this may be something new but I have not seen it to date. Just recently I've renewed church, retail and restaurant clients policies and this not not ask, mentioned or addressed in any of them.

[The Wall]

Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

[TexasCajun]

I'd like to see the gov't property 30.06/07 prohibition rewritten. Instead of a mechanism for reporting illegal/unenforceable signs to the OAG & having the OAG investigate, gov't entities should have to apply to the OAG for permission to post 30.06/07 at gov't owned premises. If the entity posts without authorization, they'd incur automatic fines - per sign, per day.

If we can't go that far, then I'd be ok with a revised mechanism that would allow fines to be retroactively applied to both the gov't entity and any private company/group/etc hosting events on gov't property. That way, when Harris County or Galeveston County allows the livestock show & rodeo group to post the entire event grounds with 30.06/07, they'd be on the hook along with the county. As it stands, temporary events are being posted and then "remedied" when the event concludes.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.

[Pawpaw]

Lower on the priority list, but I'd like to see an 18+ requirement for LTC instead of 21. College campuses are not the safest of places (as we saw last week at UT), and most attendees are underage for LTC purposes. The girl that was killed last week was 18.

I know a 20 year old kid that was an eagle scout, served a 2-year mission abroad serving others, etc., that is about to start at A&M. The second amendment applies to him as much as to me. Seems like his rights are being infringed.

I agree with your reasoning, but disagree about lowering the minimum age. One "unintended consequence" of lowering the minimum age is that some states will no longer recognize a Texas LTC. That has already happened with one or two states, just because the minimum age for military is 18.

While everything you said about college campuses and students is correct (IMHO), the potential of losing reciprocity could harm even more people.

[The Wall]

Top priority - Remove all unnecessary and dangerous off-limits areas for LTCs. The only exception should be courtrooms when the LTC is a party or witness to an ongoing case.

Chas.

How about disgruntled family and friends of the party?

No. How do we determine who is "disgruntled" and to what degree?
Chas.

Good question. I've just seen on the news several times where family members go berserk after hearing a verdict and sentence. A scenario would be a father that had his daughter raped and murdered by some scum bag and he gets off on some technicality. If I were an attorney I wouldn't want to be trying a case with my back to the gallery knowing they could all be armed. So to answer your question it's better to not allow any guns into the courtroom so you don't have to worry about determining who is disgruntled. Just my 2¢.