Discussion of Pending Bills

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

seamusTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 13551
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:04 pm
Location: Galveston

#31

Post by seamusTX » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:09 pm

What these laws are mainly intended to do is prevent incidents of the type that took place in several other states: Employers had mass searches of parking lots by police with sniffer dogs, and people found with a firearm in their vehicle were not only fired but charged criminally.

As it stands now, the same thing could happen in Texas.

Nothing can keep your employer from firing you. You might get damages if they were stupid enough to say they were firing you because you were a member of a protected class, but that's about it.

Laws can't make the world perfect.

- Jim

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#32

Post by stevie_d_64 » Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:34 pm

oilman wrote:A private employer may
prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed
handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area the employer provides for employees if:
(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is
completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and
(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot,
garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel.
(c) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
subchapter.
(d) This section does not authorize a person licensed under
this subchapter to carry a concealed handgun on any premises where
the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by state or
federal law. [/b]
/quote]

Unfortunately my employer does have a fence with security guys monitoring access. This does nothing to ensure my safety to and from work!
This is what I had a big concern about...Now that the language specifically negates liability "away from" the employer...All they have to do is put up a fence, and control the access to ward off all the evil CHL'ers...If they want to go to that expense...

I don't see too many upgrades to facilities in this regard, but it sure is aggravating to us who have CHL's and work at facilities that have gated and controlled access to where we park...

This is my wifes and my current employment situation...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

quidni
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:04 am
Location: El Paso County
Contact:

#33

Post by quidni » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:38 pm

barres wrote:
quidni wrote:Would the State of Texas be considered a "public" or a "private" employer? I'm thinking "public" but I can see some admins trying to enforce this based on the "employees only, gated and monitored" clauses.
I don't know the answer to whether the State is a public or private employer, but I don't know of any State agency that doesn't at least allow their employees to carry to and from work and store their weapons in their vehicles. Even TDCJ (the prison system) has a policy allowing its employees with CHL's to store their guns in their vehicles, and carry into a prison facility is statutorily prohibited.
The DOT employee manual prohibits firearms in the office, and in any employee vehicle that's parked in a "DOT-owned" parking lot. The parking lot issue doesn't impact me personally, yet, but it will if our office is moved in a year or so when our current lease is up. Our District Office (which is where we'd relocate to) has a gated parking lot, and they're putting a security guard at the receptionist's counter by the public entrance.

I don't think the higher-ups at DOT realize that their "gunbuster" posting is unenforceable for the general public, either.
TSRA / NRA
KA5RLA
All guns have at least two safeties. One's digital, one's cognitive. In other words - keep the digit off the trigger until ready to fire, and THINK. Some guns also have mechanical safeties on top of those. But if the first two don't work, the mechanical ones aren't guaranteed. - me


snscott
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:27 pm
Location: DFW

#34

Post by snscott » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:24 pm

And our company location has a single security monitor at the front desk that cycles through views of the parking lots. We have one security person "working" this front desk in the lobby. So, by these rules, the company can claim they DO monitor the parking lot and so therefore CAN prohibit firearms in vehicles without the expense of a fence or gate.

Which is just plain Bravo Sierra.

Why do they need to have ANY of that "unless/except" language in there? Just flat out state that CHL holders can keep their guns in their cars in the parking lot. Period. (But, as has been stated, even this still wouldn't matter because they can fire you without giving any reason). So what is the freaking point?

I would rather this law read that any company which has such a policy is LEGALLY LIABLE for their employees' personal safety from the time they leave home to come to work to the time they arrive home from work each day, so that if I am killed in a car-jacking, for example, my family can sue the company into the ground.


kauboy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)

#35

Post by kauboy » Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:39 pm

snscott wrote:I would rather this law read that any company which has such a policy is LEGALLY LIABLE for their employees' personal safety from the time they leave home to come to work to the time they arrive home from work each day, so that if I am killed in a car-jacking, for example, my family can sue the company into the ground.
It will never happen, but I would love to see this go into effect. Do you realize how many companies would immediately become "gun friendly" overnight. :lol:
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17608
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#36

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:21 pm

nitrogen wrote:Can you explain the problem with HB242 in more detail? On the face of it, I don't see what's wrong with it besides being unnecessary.
By amending TPC §30.06, HB242 opens the entire text of 30.06 to amendment. Unlike the federal congress where you can tack anything on to any bill, Texas will not allow an amendment that is not germane to the subject matter of the bill. By amending TPC 30.06, any change to it's language would be germane, including a repeal of the improvements made by SB501, or opening loopholes for governmental entities/agencies to use 30.06. Since HB242 is offered by a a clear anti-gun Representative with a "D" rating, and since it's provisions are entirely unnecessary, I have to suspect he has another motive.

Chas.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#37

Post by stevie_d_64 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:57 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Since HB242 is offered by a a clear anti-gun Representative with a "D" rating, and since it's provisions are entirely unnecessary, I have to suspect he has another motive.
We need to find some nosey kids so this can not be gotten away with!
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#38

Post by stevie_d_64 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:18 am

HB233 (Ritter D-A) Relating to a waiver of concealed handgun license fees for certain members and veterans of the military. Waives all CHL fees for active and honorably retired military.

After looking at this, I recall something similar being filed, amended and passed (2005) for the 18 year olds in active duty status stationed or billeted in Texas...

I was absolutely ok with that...I knew it would have been nice to have had "this" similar part of it pass with that bill last time IIRC, but I believe was removed to allow what did get voted on, pass...

This time I hope it goes through...

I stand to be corrected, but after looking at the link to this bill in the other thread, I read that this includes ALL honorably discharged members of the armed forces...And not just the honorably retired members...

The timing I guess I am ok with, seeings how I'll be renewing in 2007 and my birthday falls about 2 1/2 weeks before this gets enacted (if it passes), I guess I'll be paying for my next renewal...And maybe for the last time...

For the sake of discussion, I do have a concern that some things may change in the process (if this passes) that there will be a "significant" drop in revenue generated by the state fees collected in Austin for this license...

I believe a large precentage of licensees in Texas are veterans...

I would like to know if anyone else sees that if the revenue generated drops, will the quality of service track with that reduction???

i.e.:

- time it takes to process applications???

- quality of the staffing and information in the Austin CHL office???

Just some knee-jerk observations...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

barres
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 3:58 pm
Location: Prison City, Texas

#39

Post by barres » Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:29 am

So, what's the difference between HB284 and HB103? They seem to say the same thing to me.
Remember, in a life-or-death situation, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Barre


kauboy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Burleson, Lone Star State (of course)

#40

Post by kauboy » Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:41 am

stevie_d_64 wrote: I would like to know if anyone else sees that if the revenue generated drops, will the quality of service track with that reduction???

i.e.:

- time it takes to process applications???

- quality of the staffing and information in the Austin CHL office???

Just some knee-jerk observations...
Honestly, can it get worse??? :shock:
"People should not be afraid of their Governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people." - V


lrb111
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: Odessa

#41

Post by lrb111 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:42 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:HB233

- time it takes to process applications???

- quality of the staffing and information in the Austin CHL office???

Just some knee-jerk observations...


I think I saw on TexasCHA site that they did not think it would pass as it cost too much money. Lot's of new and old vets seeking licences.
Ø resist

Take away the second first, and the first is gone in a second.

NRA Life Member, TSRA, chl instructor

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17608
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#42

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:10 am

stevie_d_64 wrote:HB233 (Ritter D-A) Relating to a waiver of concealed handgun license fees for certain members and veterans of the military. Waives all CHL fees for active and honorably retired military. I stand to be corrected, but after looking at the link to this bill in the other thread, I read that this includes ALL honorably discharged members of the armed forces...And not just the honorably retired members...
Good catch, you're right. I meant to type "discharged;" I don't have a clue why I typed "retired" unless I was thinking about retirement at the time. :lol:

Chas.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17608
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

#43

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:14 am

barres wrote:So, what's the difference between HB284 and HB103? They seem to say the same thing to me.
They are identical bills. Since we are dealing with pre-filed bills, my guess is that neither author was aware of the other's bill. One bill will move and the author of the other will not push their bill.

Chas.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#44

Post by stevie_d_64 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:03 am

kauboy wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote: I would like to know if anyone else sees that if the revenue generated drops, will the quality of service track with that reduction???

i.e.:

- time it takes to process applications???

- quality of the staffing and information in the Austin CHL office???

Just some knee-jerk observations...
Honestly, can it get worse??? :shock:
You were the first thought that came to my mind on this...Knowing what you and a few others have had to deal with lately...

I'll sound to much like a gun-grabber if I tell you, "I feel your pain." :lol:
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#45

Post by stevie_d_64 » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:10 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:HB233 (Ritter D-A) Relating to a waiver of concealed handgun license fees for certain members and veterans of the military. Waives all CHL fees for active and honorably retired military. I stand to be corrected, but after looking at the link to this bill in the other thread, I read that this includes ALL honorably discharged members of the armed forces...And not just the honorably retired members...
Good catch, you're right. I meant to type "discharged;" I don't have a clue why I typed "retired" unless I was thinking about retirement at the time. :lol:

Chas.
I figured thats what happened...

I was about to get slightly $&%*&# if they overlooked a few of us who made a stupid decision, and got out before 20 years...Believe me, I kick myself very hard everyday for that poor decision...

I figure once a veteran always a veteran...

And knowing that there are way more veterans, who are much more deserving than I for anything like this...

I would just like for this to get through this time...If nothing more than to see if I am right about the revenue drop, and see if any adjustments are made to that effect...

I learned something very interesting this weekend...The Utah office only utlilizes 5 people to process hundreds of Utah Applications a day...

I'm wondering how many folks are working the Texas office...

Just something to think about I suppose...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”