SB1709: slipped under the radar

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
KBCraig
Banned
Posts: 5251
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 3:32 am
Location: Texarkana

SB1709: slipped under the radar

Postby KBCraig » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:22 am

I don't think this was a negative bill, but it escaped our attention except for this mention in Chas' bill status update:

SB1709 (Hegar) Relating to procedures to limit the carrying of handguns by persons other than peace officers on certain premises used for law enforcement. This is a companion bill to HB3635; please see comments on HB3635. Passed, effective 9/1/07.


The properly marked up text is here:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80 ... 01709F.htm

This came to my attention in the Grapevine Citizen's Police Academy thread.

My analysis: First, this does not expand places that are statutorily off limits. This bill does not make secure areas of police facilities off limits to armed CHLs. Instead, it expands the authority of peace officers to disarm CHLs, in a very specific set of circumstances: a secure location and not open to the general public and devoted exclusively to police work and providing secure lockers. Even then, it's not mandatory; it's still up to officer discretion or department policy.

Second, this confirms that peace officers do not have blanket authority to disarm CHLs. If they did, this bill would not be necessary. This pending law creates two situations where a peace officer is authorized to disarm a CHL; that named in the bill, and when the officer "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual".

Anyone challenging the policy of a department (or even an individual officer's personal policy), calling for disarming all CHLs, should probably look up the legislative debate on this bill. It should be useful.

Kevin

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16627
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:42 am

Also, the definition of "law enforcement facility" is very narrow and it makes it clear that using a portion of a building as a "law enforcement facility" doesn't render the entire building off-limits. This prevents small towns that have a PD, city hall, water dept., etc. in one building or complex of interconnected buildings from claiming it's all covered and they can disarm all CHL's. It also keeps big city PD's from claiming an entire strip mall is covered, simply because they have a "store front" sub-station in that mall.

HPD's legislative representative worked hard on this bill to get all of the bill's promoters to accept the safeguards we demanded.

Chas.

(d) In this section:
(1) "Law enforcement facility" means a building or a
portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency
that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and
(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct
the official business of the agency. The term does not include:
(A) any portion of a building not actively used
exclusively
to conduct the official business of the agency; or
(B) any public or private driveway, street,
sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking
area.
(2) "Nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement
facility" means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which
the general public is denied access without express permission and
to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business
of the law enforcement agency.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089
Contact:

Postby stevie_d_64 » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:40 pm

Seems like it also sets up some bills (2009) that could lead to further advances in definitions, reduction in restrictions and the like...

Still heading in the right direction looks like...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!


<lost>
Junior Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:09 am

Postby <lost> » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:26 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HPD's legislative representative worked hard on this bill to get all of the bill's promoters to accept the safeguards we demanded.

New here so excuse the silly question, HPD?

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Houston, Texas 77089
Contact:

Postby stevie_d_64 » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:30 am

<lost> wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:HPD's legislative representative worked hard on this bill to get all of the bill's promoters to accept the safeguards we demanded.

New here so excuse the silly question, HPD?


Houston Police Department
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!


Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest