Concern over HB220 and HB511

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

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:

#31

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:47 pm

I'll be very candid; I like Rep. Farabee's HB1037 the best, for several reasons. ( :thumbsup: ) It is a complete prohibition - period. It applies to everyone, not just CHL's, it applies everywhere and it doesn't place any requirements on the employee.

That said, we have an uphill battle and the more bills we have with various provisions, the harder it is for the opposition to complain. For every complaint they raise, there will be some bill that addresses it. That's precisely how the committee substitute came to be during the 2005 Session. The petrochemical industry complained about security and talked about their fences and guards, so that's what was put in the committee substitute.

I understand your concern about a CHL having to notify an employer about having a CHL and I don't disagree with you. But for the reasons I stated in another thread, Southwest Airlines is an excellent example, a "poster child" if you will, we can use to show this procedure works in an industry that is at least as concerned with Homeland Security issues as is the petro-chemical industry, if not more so. (BTW, we should all remember Southwest Airlines supports its CHL employees.)

As I said, I have my favorite bill, but I'll support all of them and hope we can get one passed.

I also want to say this about private property rights. I want as little governmental intrusion on private property rights as possible, even in the commercial setting. I also feel that there is far too much regulation of commercial property open to employees and the public. However, some regulation is necessary, such as reasonable fire codes. But when it comes to requiring an employer to let his employees who are CHL’s keep guns in their cars, I do not feel that is an onerous requirement. It does not affect their use of their commercial property in any fashion and at the same time, it respects the employee’s private property rights regarding their vehicle. In my view, it truly is a win-win situation.
stevie_d_64 wrote:Congratulations BTW on your award!!! Very well deserved!!!
Thank you sir, I had no idea that was coming. Alice didn't know about hers either. BTW, I love Jerry Patterson's dry wit; he was hilarious! Visiting with him was like turning the calendar back 14 years.

Chas.

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

#32

Post by stevie_d_64 » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:15 am

(BTW, we should all remember Southwest Airlines supports its CHL employees.)

I am glad to hear that...And I believe that is a great thing with Southwest...

But I am not so sure about the company I work for...

And if I am ever required to divulge my certification to a private entity, then I believe it should be required that before I am forced to inform them of this capability, that they are forced to publically announce and place in writing that they will not use this information in any way shape or form in the consideration or continued employment (or termination) of said individuals...

I'm sorry if I am being a stick in the mud about this, but I know that the potential for abuse of this information is just too much...Even if it is only a fraction of the population of this state...

Ironic, that since my wife and I both work at the same company, and that even before I got there, she found out that at least 7-8 people we work with directly (supervisors and other employees) hold Texas CHL's...Not including us...Not that it was a big sit down and talk about yourself topic at any one point...

I'm just thinking we need to be careful about what we talk about in situations like this...But thats just me..."Mr. Stick-in-da-mud" ;-)
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

User avatar

jimlongley
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6134
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:31 pm
Location: Allen, TX

#33

Post by jimlongley » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:02 am

stevie_d_64 wrote: And if I am ever required to divulge my certification to a private entity, then I believe it should be required that before I am forced to inform them of this capability, that they are forced to publically announce and place in writing that they will not use this information in any way shape or form in the consideration or continued employment (or termination) of said individuals...

I'm sorry if I am being a stick in the mud about this, but I know that the potential for abuse of this information is just too much...Even if it is only a fraction of the population of this state...
I already worked for "the company" when I got my CHL and a couple of the other guys knew I was getting one (I had to get one of them to sub for me on CHL class day, and a couple also had them) so it became "common" knowledge. We also had quite an active gun club where I was pretty involved (until I started traveling all the time) and most of the members shared their interests and advised on and other about obtaining CHL and such.

I have always felt that my boss and HR made the decision to select me to lay off based on my 2nd Amendment activism and CHL. I wish I could prove it.
Real gun control, carrying 24/7/365


switch
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:06 am
Location: Venus, TX
Contact:

Why?

#34

Post by switch » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:14 am

jimlongley wrote: I have always felt that my boss and HR made the decision to select me to lay off based on my 2nd Amendment activism and CHL. I wish I could prove it.
2nd amendment activism is not a 'protected' class. Even if the proposed laws are passed, they will not be retro-active.

While they do protect a CHL from being punished, they do not give us 'hiring' protection/preference.

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”