TexasCHLforum.com

airport guy got into varmits, but best point was southwest airlines people have guns in airport parking lot, same lot that city of Houston employees can't, so guns are already in that lot. depending on whom you work for but he has to drive unarmed to/from work because he works for the wrong group, but in the same parking lot are others with guns who have a different employer..

Do we really want to revise the definition of premises in the CHL code as suggested by the NRA rep?

8:18pm, meeting adjourned. The last person testifying in favor of the bill finally mentioned in reference to the chemical company provision, that gasoline pumps also contain an explosive substance yet the carrying of firearms within their proximity is not prohibited.

jmra wrote:Do we really want to revise the definition of premises in the CHL code as suggested by the NRA rep?

I for one did not understand the confusion over the definition of premises and why it should be changed.

I do a bit of work in these plants, there are very few places where high powered deer rifle would do damage exremely few places that would cause catastrophe. Defencive load hollow point handgun ammunition is almost harmless.

Clue ... Lead and copper don't spark much. pipes are pretty tough and rounded, most vessels are prety thick. a 1/2 inch hole is still a small leak. Not saying thats it a good idea to plink in a chemical plant. Just that blowing up one with handgunfire is pretty near impossible. biggest danger at most plants is sparks. but parking lots aren't near these zones.

So the meeting was adjourned without taking a vote ? (is this common? Couldn't they have taken a vote at the end of discussing the bill?) Anyone have an idea when they will vote?

Aggie_engr wrote:

jmra wrote:Do we really want to revise the definition of premises in the CHL code as suggested by the NRA rep?

I for one did not understand the confusion over the definition of premises and why it should be changed.

There's actually several definitions of Premises which could be used

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.46.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Penal Sec. 46.02
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

Penal Code 46.03
(c) In this section:
(1) "Premises" has the meaning assigned by Section 46.035.


Sec. 46.035
f) In this section:
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.


but another definition in the Education Code, so either could be used.
Penal Code Sec. 46.11.
(c) In this section:

(1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises" have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety Code.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... hs.481.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Section 481.134, Health and Safety Code.
Sec. 481.134. DRUG-FREE ZONES. (a) In this section:
(4) "Premises" means real property and all buildings and appurtenances pertaining to the real property.



But I missed the part on what they thought needed doing?

Liberty wrote:I do a bit of work in these plants, there are very few places where high powered deer rifle would do damage exremely few places that would cause catastrophe. Defencive load hollow point handgun ammunition is almost harmless.

Clue ... Lead and copper don't spark much. pipes are pretty tough and rounded, most vessels are prety thick. a 1/2 inch hole is still a small leak. Not saying thats it a good idea to plink in a chemical plant. Just that blowing up one with handgunfire is pretty near impossible. biggest danger at most plants is sparks. but parking lots aren't near these zones.

Good points, also I wonder ...
I wonder if gasoline STORED in employee's car fuel tanks, being about ten sticks of dynamite per gallon should be prohibited.
Guns stored in the same cars are less dangerous, the explosives in ammo are probably less than the gas unless you have kegs of powder or many cases of ammo in the car.

Liberty wrote:I do a bit of work in these plants, there are very few places where high powered deer rifle would do damage exremely few places that would cause catastrophe. Defencive load hollow point handgun ammunition is almost harmless.

Clue ... Lead and copper don't spark much. pipes are pretty tough and rounded, most vessels are prety thick. a 1/2 inch hole is still a small leak. Not saying thats it a good idea to plink in a chemical plant. Just that blowing up one with handgunfire is pretty near impossible. biggest danger at most plants is sparks. but parking lots aren't near these zones.

Didn't mythbusters on Discovery bust the old things blow when bullets hit them myth. I believe the only way they got ignition with anything was when they used tracers and even then it was hit and miss.

jmra wrote:Do we really want to revise the definition of premises in the CHL code as suggested by the NRA rep?

No idea where she was headed with that... As for the so-called discrepancy between the concept of "in a vehicle" or "on the premises", that's a total red herring. The definition of premises is clearly called out. The bill states that employers must allow firearms in vehicles, but have discretion about allowing firearms on the premises. The "on the premises" part is no different from current law; it's just in there to reiterate the point. As for the area outside of the car, but not on the premises (the "discrepancy"), the bill says nothing about that. Again, that means no change from the current law. It really doesn't matter how you define "premises", the only area this bill would change is inside a private vehicle. Why is that so hard to understand? (My guess is that the lobbyists are paid to "be confused" by it.)

Anyway, they didn't vote on it tonight. I thought that was the plan - to vote it out tonight...? Is this a bad sign, or was it to be expected considering the time of day?

I listened to the whole thing, I think every bill had a public hearing today, none got voted on, all seemed to have someone or another who will provide the committee with some more info or details in the morning.

Here's the "process" as I understand it
"Public hearing" (today)
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... mproc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
then next is "Committee reports"
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... eport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After considering a bill, a committee may choose to take no action or may issue a report on the bill to the house or senate. Committee reports are advisory only and may take several forms. The committee may recommend passage of the bill without amendments, or it may recommend amendments to the bill or even substitute a new bill for the original document.

then it may make it to
"House calendars and list of items eligible for consideration"
http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... secal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and so on down the list on the right side of that page

...

(It's actually pretty amazing that anything ever gets done with all the steps)

Anyone listening to the Senate Criminal Justice committee meeting today? They were supposed to start at 1:30 and SB 321 is one of the four bills on the agenda.

hirundo82 wrote:Anyone listening to the Senate Criminal Justice committee meeting today? They were supposed to start at 1:30 and SB 321 is one of the four bills on the agenda.

Yes it's over already. it went well as far as I could tell it had some of the same people testify as yesterday, Committee wasn't as tired and seemed favorable IMHO
Ellis will probably vote against it We need to let the Senators know we need it.
See: viewtopic.php?f=94&t=42745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I understood the gobbeldygook that passes for English in those hearings, the bill was reported out of the committee favorably with a vote of 7 ayes and no dissent. Ellis had left the room.

Sounds great - if only the House committee could work as fast. I did feel bad for them yesterday, though - long day. I would have felt pretty ground down by the end of all that.