No - because only one poster has actually answered the question.The Annoyed Man wrote:Needed to say it twice just to be sure?


Moderator: Charles L. Cotton
No - because only one poster has actually answered the question.The Annoyed Man wrote:Needed to say it twice just to be sure?
Once again, we're not talking about those entities, but schools and a campus-carry bill.Ameer wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:RPB wrote: I have an issue with the state being NOT regulating private property owners who receive MILLIONS in Tax dollars . They regulate road construction companies ... etc etc etcPrivate schools aren't truly private unless they stand on the same footing as every other business in Texas.
Chas.I said the same about non-profits and religious organizations that get special tax breaks and subsidies.
Can't get it passed without the private school provision.terryg wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:RPB wrote:I have an issue with the state being NOT regulating private property owners who receive MILLIONS in Tax dollars . They regulate road construction companies ... etc etc etcterryg wrote:
So, I wonder why the NRA-ILA chooses to support SB 354 over HB 86? I like HB 86 much better as there are no-exclusions for private institutions. But, I guess they fear that this may also make it harder to pass. Any other reasons anybody can see?Private schools aren't truly private unless they stand on the same footing as every other business in Texas.
Chas.I also agree. Which is why I ask the question as to why the more restrictive bill is getting the NRA endorsement over the more broadly worded (and first filed) bill? Again, I speculate to better ensure passage.
Thanks Mr. Cotton. That's what I was afraid of - but I was wondering if there might be some other sublty I was missing. Thanks for confirming.Charles L. Cotton wrote: Can't get it passed without the private school provision.
Chas.
As far as I know, there is no direct benefit to it. But, by filing two bills,it allows both houses to work on the bills at the same time. If all goes very well and both pass their respective bill, it can go to a conference committee to work out the differences or pick one. A possible slight tactical advantage to this is that filing the bills in slightly different format allows you to measure how strong the opposition is to some points (would it really pass with provision X in it or not). This might let the house with the more restrictive bill see the support for less restrictions, if it works out that way.terryg wrote:Is there a legislative benefit to a Senate originating bill over a House originating bill?
So theoretically, the reverse could be true. If the House bill passed without much fanfare, it could show the Senate that a bill could pass without the private exemptions. Not that I think that would happen, but it could work that way - right?srothstein wrote:A possible slight tactical advantage to this is that filing the bills in slightly different format allows you to measure how strong the opposition is to some points (would it really pass with provision X in it or not). This might let the house with the more restrictive bill see the support for less restrictions, if it works out that way.
The Annoyed Man wrote:Out of curiosity, does that mean that you do not support SB321, the "parking lot" bill? I ask because consistency would demand that if that is your position.oldtexan wrote:I prefer SB 354 to HB 86. I have an issue with the state being able to tell private property owners what they can, or cannot, do with their property, in this case, private universities. There is a conflict between 2d Amendment rights and property rights. I strongly support both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to control one's own property. I prefer SB 354's solution to this conflict.
HB750 provides immunity to schools that do not ban armed CHL's, in the event a CHL harms or kills someone, or damages property. This immunity is not available to a private school that elects to ban armed CHL's from the premises. Remember, absent 30.06 signs, CHL's can carry everywhere on private schools campuses except in buildings and activity grounds where school sponsored activities are ongoing, so the lack of immunity is not a minor issue.hirundo82 wrote:OK, thanks for the clarification.
So a private institution could potentially be liable for damages resulting from their decision to ban carry? That could make a different when they consult the faculty, staff, and students as required by the bill.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB750 has some significant differences that are not readily apparent. Unnecessary and potentially confusing and conflicting language in SB354 has been removed; the immunity provisions do not apply to a private school that bans carrying on the "premises," undefined language in TPC §46.03(a)(1) has been removed or amended; and the 30.06 requirement for sporting events is added to TPC §46.035(i) rather than making it a stand-alone (and more obvious) addition.
Chas.