TexasCHLforum.com

SB 321 has finally passed on third reading

Awesome. I think this question was asked earlier, but will this effect teachers. My wife just got her education degree, and plans to start teaching this fall. Does anyone know?

Ha, so we were talking about this bill and my student worker (I work at a private university) is wondering if the bill would cover him allowing him to store in his vehicle on campus since he works for us part time!!!

so does the bill have to go back to the senate now, or does it go to the govenor?

hirundo82 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:What happened? I just turned on video feed and "Chuy" was pushing some joint resolution commending some businesswoman from south America or something - couldn't stomach hearing his voice anymore, so turned it off

Wrong feed--that's the Senate; SB321 is on the floor of the House.

oh, i thought it was backin senate debating the two house-added amendments ....

Hookemhorns1997 wrote:so does the bill have to go back to the senate now, or does it go to the govenor?

I think Charles has answered that question twice already.

turned on video of house just in time to see "I don't understand" guy

quickly turned it off, but not before figuring out his name ...

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... strict=142" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyone in this guy's east Houston district? I'll raise money for you if you want to run against him. My only prerequisite is that you can fog a mirror AND understand this sentence "this bill ONLY allows those persons legally authorized to possess guns to possess them in their vehicles in a parking lot"

What was the amendment to the bill? The website says it was offered by Harnett, who was one of those consistently voting against the bill yesterday.

TrueFlog wrote:Eiland is speaking again about the fact that contractors are not covered. He seems to understand that this bill is the best we can do. I think he's just trying to cover himself with his constituents - showing he made an effort to get contractors included. He and Kleinschmidt agree the best approach is to pass this bill, then amend it next session to cover contractors.

Record vote... Passed 117-29!

As one who has worked many projects as a contractor, at first glance I do not see this as a big deal. I just read through three contracts that I have worked and there is no mention of weapons/firearms. So unless the parking lot is posted it is not a big deal. As a contractor I have been able to carry into buildings that the employees of the same company could not. Most of my contracts have been Corp-to-Corp. Very rarely are there specifics about my employees in the contract other than they must conduct themselves in an ethical manner and drug free. If you contract directly with a company (versus owning your own business-LLC) and they dictate too many restrictions--that in essence treat you as an employee--then you may have a case of being an employee and the company may have to provide the employee benefits to you. The IRS has very specific rules about contractor-vs-employees.

I am sure there are some contracts that would have language preventing it, however, unless the contact also states they can search your car then I would say, "Concealed is concealed".

Just my two cents YMMV.

I wonder how this affects employees where the employer leases X number of floors in a building where the property owner's policy also prevents storage in personal vehicles.

Hookemhorns1997 wrote:so does the bill have to go back to the senate now, or does it go to the govenor?

To the Senate as I understand it.

The amendment adopted today doesn't substantially alter the bill, as far as I can tell. I just clarifies that immunity from liability does not extend to any person who causes injury with the firearm. Such immunity was never in the bill to begin with, so I don't know why the amendment was necessary, but it doesn't change anything.

Text Here

Arg, saw this on another forum...


Also, school employees are not covered by the law.


BOOOOOO!!!!!!

Boy, people do sure want others to be victims, don't they?

How does affect Penal Code 46.03(a)(1)? You know, the written authorization of a school part?

Jasonw560 wrote:How does affect Penal Code 46.03(a)(1)? You know, the written authorization of a school part?

SB321 doesn't make any changes to the Penal Code. It's already legal for school employees to have firearms in their vehicles on school property--they can just be fired if it is discovered.