HB 554

[RoyGBiv]

text: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00554I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am I correct that his Bill could be called the "Oops, I forgot I was carrying" Bill?

CHL shows up at airport checkpoint, a gun is found on their person or in their bag. They get sent away to remedy the problem and their CHL is a defense to prosecution.

What if they are successful at entering the secure area before their Oops is discovered?
I suppose that is still a no-no and remains an offense.

Also.... the language in section e-1(2) is ambiguous, perhaps intentionally?
"notification" from whom? The CHL notifies the TSA? The TSA notifies the CHL that their gat was discovered? Either?
If I step out of line and notify the TSA I made this oops, I'm ok to leave the line and handle it? AND
If the TSA sees my gun in my bag, they just send me out of line to handle it?

Seems like a very good thing to give CHL's the benefit of the doubt always. Also feels a bit strange (because it is unusual... ).
Will having no penalty for getting caught encourage more people with CHLs to try and carry through security? Probably not..

(2) exited the screening checkpoint for the secured
area immediately upon notification that the actor possessed the
handgun.

Interesting Bill. Would be nice to see this become a trend.

[jimlongley]

It is strange because they have the CHL holder exiting to the "secured" area, which would mean they passed the checkpoint and now were in the secured area armed. I think it should be "unsecured."

[jmra]

There are a lot of other things I'd like to see political capital spent on passing before any is spent on this bill. I just don't have much sympathy for someone who doesn't secure their weapon when they are not intentionally carrying it. I know where everyone of my weapons are at all times. How could anyone forget that their carry weapon was in their carry on luggage. If a person has that much trouble keeping up with their firearms...

[jimlongley]

On rereading, I realize that once again I have misinterpreted what I consider to be clumsy legalese.

I read "exited the screening checkpoint for the secured area immediately upon notification that the actor possessed the handgun."

I read that to mean that the actor had exited the screening checkpoint INTO the secured area, where what is meant appears to be that the actor has left the screening checkpoint that is for the secured area.

Doesn't pay to read these things when I haven't had enough espresso and am almost late for work.

Now my next question is whether this will override federal law.

[CleverNickname]

Now my next question is whether this will override federal law.

Since when does state law ever override federal law?

[jmra]

Now my next question is whether this will override federal law.

Since when does state law ever override federal law?

Legalized marijuana?

[Jumping Frog]

Now my next question is whether this will override federal law.

The TSA is not law enforcement at these airport checkpoints. They rely upon local police to make arrests pursuant to local law. However, the TSA can and does assess large "civil penalties" for violating their administrative regulations.

My belief is the Texan could leave the checkpoint and have no criminal charges, but would still receive a letter from the TSA several months later assessing the fine. This is still a net positive, as regulatory fines do not appear on a criminal record.

[CleverNickname]

Now my next question is whether this will override federal law.

Since when does state law ever override federal law?

Legalized marijuana?

Marijuana is still illegal according to federal law, in all states. IIRC the Justice Dept has made the decision not to prosecute if possession is legal under state law, but if they changed their minds, a state couldn't do much about it, legally.

Now of course, you can argue that the 10th Amendment doesn't give the feds the power to regulate marijuana, and you'd be correct. But that argument is over what the commerce clause of the Constitution allows the federal government to do, not whether federal law overrides state law.

Read up on the supremacy clause of the Constitution if this is still confusing.