Page 1 of 1
SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:23 am
by RPB
I just E-mailed committee members as I don't have FAX right now.
For contact info on each go here:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senat ... 0/c590.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Below is what I just sent
I heard how ultra-safe UT Austin is, the UT crime map shows in the past year, 3/23/2010-3/23-2011
153 assaults, and 186 burglaries (and currently CHLs must store guns in cars for vehicular burglars to get)
How do they call that safe?
http://www.ucrime.com/tx/university+of+texas+at+austin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have a logic question.
Those more likely to commit crimes deciding whether those less likely to commit crimes may protect themselves.
DPS Statistics prove that CHLs are far less likely to commit crimes.
That is as illogical as having prisoners vote on whether prison guards may be armed for self protection.
Why trust people who think it's cute or smart to waive cardboard guns around at Senate hearings to decide whether an adult female may protect herself from a parking lot rapist?
The anti- group kept throwing out the red herring to try and divert the topic to campus safety, this bill is about personal protection, not CHLs acting as campus security.
Please pass this bill without amendments.
Thank you.
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:57 am
by Jasonw560
I just called Sen. Whitmire's office. The staffer said that they would vote on the substitute with the amendment that clarifies hospitals and churches on campus still post 30.06.
He said it would be voted out of committee (favorably, it sounded like) either this week, or the next committee meeting on Tuesday. Need to keep our eyes and ears peeled, and keep calling!!
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:00 pm
by RPB
Jasonw560 wrote:I just called Sen. Whitmire's office. The staffer said that they would vote on the substitute with the amendment that clarifies hospitals and churches on campus still post 30.06.
He said it would be voted out of committee (favorably, it sounded like) either this week, or the next committee meeting on Tuesday. Need to keep our eyes and ears peeled, and keep calling!!
Thanks for that info
I have no problem with churches on campus being allowed to post a 30.06 if they really want to be defenseless, they should have that option IMHO, I don't shop at any of those; there are plenty of off campus churches at/near most places.
Apparently workers at the campus veterinary hospitals can be armed and no 30.06 allowed, so the druggies will need to go to the people hospitals pharmacies.
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:52 pm
by Ameer
Please ask they amend the effective dates to 2011 to match the house bill. Senate bill says 2012.
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:39 pm
by warhorse10_9
Ameer wrote:Please ask they amend the effective dates to 2011 to match the house bill. Senate bill says 2012.
The senate bill already says 2011. No amendment needed.
*** Nevermind I see what you are saying that wording is kind of tricky.
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:03 pm
by RPB
Anyone doing follow up contacts, PLEASE read this thread
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In a nutshell:
Like Rosa Parks, if you want a seat on the
parking lot shuttle bus, you gonna have to fight to get one. Otherwise walk a mile to your car with a backpack and be "less safe"
"THEY" let Rosa Parks sit in the back and she complained, "we" (disabled Veterans/handicapped who got CHLs to be responsible for their own safety because they are "easy targets") don't even get to get
ON the
parking lot shuttle bus?
THEY want us to walk a mile to the car, carrying a heavy backpack and be "less safe."
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:31 pm
by Skaven
Yeah I made the post because I realized that as the bill stands, I am going to have to walk and not ride the shuttle buses. I'm sure that the clause was specifically to keep people from carrying to school events in a charter bus, and what not, but it will also end up excluding people who use school sponsored public transportation.
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:44 pm
by RPB
Skaven wrote:Yeah I made the post because I realized that as the bill stands, I am going to have to walk and not ride the shuttle buses. I'm sure that the clause was specifically to keep people from carrying to school events in a charter bus, and what not, but it will also end up excluding people who use school sponsored public transportation.
Right
"a passenger transportation vehicle
of(owned by?)(serving?)(contracted to cover parking lots of?) a school or education institution," ...
Edited,
"school or education institution" is probably referring to k-12 school buses, not "institution of higher education" ....
MAYBE?
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=43454&p=524978#p524968" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It should be cleared up sooner rather than later if possible
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:32 pm
by cbr600
deleted
Re: SB 354 Follow up
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:22 pm
by Douva
Skaven wrote:Yeah I made the post because I realized that as the bill stands, I am going to have to walk and not ride the shuttle buses. I'm sure that the clause was specifically to keep people from carrying to school events in a charter bus, and what not, but it will also end up excluding people who use school sponsored public transportation.
If you watch Sen. Wentworth's introduction during the committee hearing, he says that his committee substitute fixes the language to include campus transportation.