TexasCHLforum.com

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.

This is also how I read it, because of the commas and the OR in the wording ...

An employee who is a CHL holder, a person who can legally possess a weapon other than CHL holder OR someone carrying ammunition for a legal firearm.
However, as I said, the video keeps referencing the law as if it only applies to CHL holders.

will381796 wrote: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.

There may be reasons for writing them that way.

O6nop 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.

This is also how I read it, because of the commas and the OR in the wording ...

An employee who is a CHL holder, a person who can legally possess a weapon other than CHL holder OR someone carrying ammunition for a legal firearm.
However, as I said, the video keeps referencing the law as if it only applies to CHL holders.

I definitely think it is intentional that it is written this way.

As written, it not only applies to CHL holders (~1.5% of Texans) but also protects those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act and to (this is a big one) hunters who may not care about CHL rights but want protection from being fired if they are planning on going hunting after work and leave a gun secured in their car. This may be key to getting unions on board.

yeah, and writing it this way makes it not blatantly obvious to people that would otherwise flip smooth out if they thought it applied to everyone.
I don't know offhand what video is being referenced, but that just may be that person's interpretation, whoever that is.

as far as the writing, well, if you're familiar with reading the law, roun' these parts, you might write a law in a similar fashion.

This was on the first page of this topic...

Keith B wrote:

will381796 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

will381796 wrote:Thank god. Are transcripts of these hearings released to the public so we can read them at their conclusion?

To my knowledge, the audio is not transcribed, but you can watch the video at any time.

Chas.

Where's the video?

Archived video is here http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Committee on Criminal Justice is here http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senat ... 0/c590.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You will need RealPlayer to view or listen

IT WAS UNANIMOUS

The Criminal Justice Committee voted 7-0-0 to report SB 730 favorably out of committee

Even Sen. Rodney Ellis voted for it. This is a really good sign for the bill's future. Congratualtions to Sen. Hegar.

This may explain why the change was made regarding language exempting school employees.

While it has been said, and rightfully so, that maybe we can come back next session and include the teachers etc., all in not lost for this year.

It is possible that the House version might not have this exemption. If that happens then the bill could go to conference to work out differences and the problem could be fixed there.

Do we have the exact wording of the amendment exempting schools from this? I'd like to take a gander and see if it specifies primary and secondary schools or if it is just the ever-general "school" that is exempted.

They just posted the amended version, so here's the wording:

(h)AAThis section does not apply to:
(1)AAa school district;
(2)AAan open-enrollment charter school, as defined by
Section 5.001, Education Code; or
(3)AAa private school, as defined by Section 22.081,
Education Code.

(h)AAThis section does not apply to:
(1)AAa school district;
(2)AAan open-enrollment charter school, as defined by
Section 5.001, Education Code; or

5.001(6) "Open-enrollment charter school" means a school that has been granted a charter under Subchapter D, Chapter 12.

(3)AAa private school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code.

22.081(3) "Private school" means a school that:
(A) offers a course of instruction for students in one or more grades from prekindergarten through grade 12; and
(B) is not operated by a governmental entity.
(Identical to the definition in 5.001(6-a), so apparently they're just using this one to be annoying)

(h)AAThis section does not apply to:
(1)AAa school district;
(2)AAan open-enrollment charter school, as defined by
Section 5.001, Education Code; or
(3)AAa private school, as defined by Section 22.081,
Education Code.

The bill as a whole is a big step forward -- this particular amendment is a significant flaw, however. Hope this can be fixed in the House and reconciliation. It would be very peculiar for the state to demand that a private employer obey this law, but a government employer, e.g. the school district, doesn't have to.

Looks like SB730 was voted out of the House Public Safety Committee unanimously on the 27th and should be headed to House for vote!! http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=SB730" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All right! Let's hope it makes it the rest of the way.

This question is for Charles or someone in the know.

Now that this is in the house, who/what needs to be done to get it up for vote? Does it have a drop dead date like the ones that are in committee??

This bill is very important to me (and many others) so want to see it passed since it have had nothing but unanimous support so far.

Thanks!

Keith B wrote:This question is for Charles or someone in the know.

Now that this is in the house, who/what needs to be done to get it up for vote? Does it have a drop dead date like the ones that are in committee??

This bill is very important to me (and many others) so want to see it passed since it have had nothing but unanimous support so far.

Thanks!

SB730 was voted favorably from the House Public Safety Committee, as substituted. It's now on its way to the House Calendars Committee. It is not subject to the May 11th deadline, since it passed its body of origin (Senate). This bill is highly controversial, but it should be okay.

The campus-carry bill, however, is far from okay. Someone on the Calendars Committee is holding it up and it could well die without even getting a vote. That's a travesty in view of the number of co-authors that bill has.

Chas.