TexasCHLforum.com

will381796 wrote:Was there any discussion of this bill in the Committee meeting today?

It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

will381796 wrote:Was there any discussion of this bill in the Committee meeting today?

It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.

Chas.

Not perfect, but not bad. Great work all!

I am very happy to hear that institutes of higher education were not exempted from the provision. Next session, if this passes, hopefully we can get that exemption removed so teachers can protect themselves like everyone else.

Hopefully they won't try to back up and prohibit a CHL/non-employee from having it in their car on primary/secondary educational institutions.

This story just hit digg.com:

http://digg.com/politics/Texas_Law_Woul ... ns_to_Work" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Digg users, go read and digg this story.

Many of the comments seem pro-2a so far.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.

Chas.

Charles, I cannot find where, on the Senate pages, it indicates that SB 730 was voted out of committee. Where is it? Also, in viewing the "text" portion it still shows the original text. Please help me find these things.

I contacted Sen. Hegar's office by phone and email thanking him (and Sen. Patrick) for the intelligent and assertive defense of SB 730 in committee. I also asked him to not allow teachers to be forced to become second class citizens regarding the second amendment.

I feel that if he has indeed deferred to the "education lobby" on this it was because it was needed to get the rest of the bill passed. Sen. Hegar has been so pro 2A that if he feels he needs this backstep to pass the bulk of the bill, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and trust his judgement. I don't like it but can accept that these gains we enjoy have been incrimental in nature. We can address it again later.

CWOOD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.

Chas.

Charles, I cannot find where, on the Senate pages, it indicates that SB 730 was voted out of committee. Where is it? Also, in viewing the "text" portion it still shows the original text. Please help me find these things.

I contacted Sen. Hegar's office by phone and email thanking him (and Sen. Patrick) for the intelligent and assertive defense of SB 730 in committee. I also asked him to not allow teachers to be forced to become second class citizens regarding the second amendment.

I feel that if he has indeed deferred to the "education lobby" on this it was because it was needed to get the rest of the bill passed. Sen. Hegar has been so pro 2A that if he feels he needs this backstep to pass the bulk of the bill, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and trust his judgement. I don't like it but can accept that these gains we enjoy have been incrimental in nature. We can address it again later.

The Legislative website hasn't been updated yet. It seems to be running a little slower this session.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The Legislative website hasn't been updated yet. It seems to be running a little slower this session.

Chas.

Gosh! It is runnig VERY SLOOOOOOW. I believe last session it was updated within 24 hours. Here it is 3 days later and the Senate website is still showing no change and still has the "As Introduced" text.

Thanks for the reply and thanks for the update.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:So, which, if any, committee members are expected to oppose it?

This is just a guess, but Senator Rodney Ellis earned his "F" rating, so I suspect he'll oppose it. He even made a joke about scoring some points with the business lobby by opposing it.

Chas.

You mean my phone call to his office had no effect?

And they even took my phone number so they could call me back!

Have not heard from him....

I've read elsewhere on this forum that the parking lot law is not restricted to CHL holders, but the video keeps referencing CHL holders as the ones this law will benefit. Could somebody reassure me for myself and for those opponents of the bill I talk to how this is intended? Thanks

From the wording of the originally submitted law (the amended version is not yet available) :

A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees

This law only affects CHL holders.

"holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"

I read this to mean anyone that can lawfully possess a firearm (not limited to CHL's).
Anyone that carries under the Motorist Protection Act is covered in this bill as far as I can see.

AEA wrote:"holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"

I read this to mean anyone that can lawfully possess a firearm (not limited to CHL's).
Anyone that carries under the Motorist Protection Act is covered in this bill as far as I can see.

What about the first part of that sentence?

Purplehood wrote:

AEA wrote:"holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"

I read this to mean anyone that can lawfully possess a firearm (not limited to CHL's).
Anyone that carries under the Motorist Protection Act is covered in this bill as far as I can see.

What about the first part of that sentence?

They comma is the difference. When you read it, pause at the comma and see if it doesn't make a difference in your interpretation.

My understanding is the intent of the bill was to allow CHL'ers and those carrying in their vehicles under the MPA to be allowed to keep their weapon locked in the vehicle on the company lot.

Reading into the analysis of the bill available on the legislative website, I now agree with that interpretation. You would think that these people that we pay to write our laws could write a law clearly, without ambiguity and without wiggle room.