TexasCHLforum.com

GEM-Texas wrote:What does private school mean - DeVry, ITT, private colleges across the state?

For that matter, does "school district" mean all employees throughout the district? Seems vague enough to be disastrous for college teachers, et al.

OldSchool wrote:

GEM-Texas wrote:What does private school mean - DeVry, ITT, private colleges across the state?

For that matter, does "school district" mean all employees throughout the district? Seems vague enough to be disastrous for college teachers, et al.

Per the bill, private school is defined in the Texas Education Code § 22.081.

§ 22.081. DEFINITION. In this subchapter, "private
school" means a school that:
(1) offers a course of instruction for students in one
or more grades from prekindergarten through grade 12; and
(2) is not operated by a governmental entity.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 260, § 1, eff. May 30, 1995.

Thanks for the clarification.

Neither Baylor nor Rice are private schools ?

The text of committee substitute HB681 is finally available now - they added a section about chemical plants Sec. 52.062. subsection F

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00681H.htm

How does this work with the fact the senate has already approved the companion without this section? Will they try to remove subsection F on the house floor? Or if the house is adamant about it, we have to get it back through the senate with the subsection F added?

Liberty wrote:Neither Baylor nor Rice are private schools ?

Not in regards to the way the bill is written. The bill will only apply for schools per the sections of the Texas Education Code listed.

artx wrote:The text of committee substitute HB681 is finally available now - they added a section about chemical plants Sec. 52.062. subsection F

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 00681H.htm

How does this work with the fact the senate has already approved the companion without this section? Will they try to remove subsection F on the house floor? Or if the house is adamant about it, we have to get it back through the senate with the subsection F added?

I started a separate thread with the added section, for folks who may want to comment on the changes rather than have to look up the original bill and compare it to the one linked here. Not everyone one is a political junkie like some of us so they may not want to wade through the legislature's site.

I apologize in advance, but reading this confuses me. I work in a chemical plant, and have a CHL, so can I carry my gun in my vehicle while at work or not?

rcain007 wrote:I apologize in advance, but reading this confuses me. I work in a chemical plant, and have a CHL, so can I carry my gun in my vehicle while at work or not?

I am not a lawyer, but the way I interpret the amendment is that you would be able to park outside the secured area and keep it in your car. Those without a CHL would not be protected by the law.

It sounds like there are two bills, substantially the same, one coming from the house and one from the senate (B681 & SB321). Do these two then go into some reconcilliation process? Just curious about the process.

cbr600 wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:It sounds like there are two bills, substantially the same, one coming from the house and one from the senate (B681 & SB321). Do these two then go into some reconcilliation process? Just curious about the process.

That's something I'd like to know too. Does each bill have to run the gauntlet of both chambers, or do parallel HB/SB speed up the process?

I looked here and here and here but I'm still confused.

I found this from one of your links:

COMPANION BILL—A bill filed in one chamber that is identical or very similar to a bill filed in the opposite chamber. Companion bills are used to expedite passage as they provide a means for committee consideration of a measure to occur in both houses simultaneously. A companion bill that has passed one house then can be substituted for the companion bill in the second house.

Maybe they can substitute SB321 for HB681 when HB681 goes to the House floor? Then if there are any amendments, they can do the committee process?

I would be interested to learn who specifically makes the request to do the substitution.

I work in a high security facility, and I do not give a damn about the policy of the company that I work for. Find a good holster. I will carry where I choose, except in a bar, and If I decide to drink. Planning, plan, plan, plan....

artx wrote:Maybe they can substitute SB321 for HB681 when HB681 goes to the House floor? Then if there are any amendments, they can do the committee process?

I would be interested to learn who specifically makes the request to do the substitution.

Both bills are available to go to the floor and should be. However, I believe if Calendars passes SB 321 to the floor with no further changes, and it is voted on and passed by the House with no amendments, then HB 681 will not be required to go out and can die in committee.

Keith B wrote:

rcain007 wrote:I apologize in advance, but reading this confuses me. I work in a chemical plant, and have a CHL, so can I carry my gun in my vehicle while at work or not?

I am not a lawyer, but the way I interpret the amendment is that you would be able to park outside the secured area and keep it in your car. Those without a CHL would not be protected by the law.

Unless his company doesn't prohibit keeping his gun in the car, right? Or is the chemical plant thing law?