Priorities for 2019 legislative session

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
mloamiller
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:49 pm
Location: Grand Prairie, TX

Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#1

Post by mloamiller » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:25 am

My thoughts for those things that would have the most significant impact on my day-to-day carry, in priority order:
  • 1.Expand the protection that prohibits a person from being fired just for having a gun in their locked car to also cover licensed carry on the premises, even while at work. In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work.
  • 2. Remove the loophole in 411.209 that excludes third-parties leasing government-owned facilities from the fines associated with prohibiting concealed or open carry in those facilities. Either the third-party should be subject to the same fines, or the governmental entity that owns the facility would still be subject to the same fines, even if the third-party is preventing licensed carry. Licensed carriers need something with substance to go after these third-parties that are deliberately going against the legislative intent of 411.209, and the governmental entities that allow them to do so.
  • 3. Remove all of the so-called "gun free zones" defined in 46.03 and 46.035.
Those would have a huge impact on me personally, and my ability to literally carry "everywhere, all the time."
LTC Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor, RSO
IDPA SO


Texas1836
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#2

Post by Texas1836 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:59 am

Let’s think even bigger and focus on removing the ability of cities, counties and all other public entities to hire lobbyists. Texas is one of the few states that allows this. I doubt there isn’t one instance where they aren’t lobbying against our 2nd amendment rights.


Texas1836
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#3

Post by Texas1836 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:07 am

https://empowertexans.com/around-texas/ ... vernments/

“Over half of registered lobbyists in Texas are hired to defend the power of local governments, paid for with taxpayer money. It makes perfect sense then, that State Sen. Konni Burton’s (R-Colleyville) effort (SB 1862) to reform the government lobbying structure was met with harsh opposition by—you guessed it—local governments.”


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 889
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#4

Post by crazy2medic » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:06 am

Clarify and improve Fines for Signs, language needs to define only the court room and it's associated offices may prohibit a firearm, allow not only the AG office to impose a fine but allow a wronged citizen to sue not only the Govt but also those individuals that make the decision to prohibit LTCs from carrying on govt property! Increase the amount of the fines!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention


bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3589
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#5

Post by bblhd672 » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:13 am

Do not pass any legislation that will make the gun control crowd claim a victory in Texas. Even if the legislation is part of the governor’s school safety agenda. No new infringements.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17037
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#6

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:15 am

1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#7

Post by PriestTheRunner » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:24 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:15 am
1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.
Biggest ones for me:
1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs, including courtrooms and courthouses. LTC's have proven themselves law abiding. The LTC's gun is not the gun you need to worry about. Require federal courtrooms to have real security (metal detectors) and a place to secure firearms temporarily.
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting Non-Profit Religious Institutions (Churches) from the Texas Private Security Act. Define volunteer as non paid person or a person whose function does not explicitly require security duties (IE- pastors) and receives pay for other services only.
3. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.
4. Remove the ability for cities and townships to hire lobbyists.

Fantastic ideas / options:
5. Ban the increase of insurance premiums due to the allowing or not-allowing of LTC's on the premises. Having 30.06 or 30.07 up (or not) should have no affect on premiums. Legislate that insurance may not require 30.06 or 30.07 postage.
6. Require that employers who do not post 30.06 and 30.07 publicly may not prohibit 30.06 and 30.07 for employees (IE, if you don't exclude the public LTC's, you may not exclude employee LTCs).
7. Create blanket protections for employers if a person uses a firearm in defense of self or others, and such an action was not within the employee's scope of work or job duties, then the employer is exempt and protected from litigation. IE- a person's defense of themselves cannot open the business to a lawsuit.
8. Clarify concealed
9. Clarify brandishing and specify 'legal brandishing' against threats of violence

10. Fix this: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/06/off-du ... z5ImZe1SEG
Last edited by PriestTheRunner on Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 11995
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#8

Post by C-dub » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:31 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:15 am
1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.
mloamiller wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:25 am
[*]2. Remove the loophole in 411.209 that excludes third-parties leasing government-owned facilities from the fines associated with prohibiting concealed or open carry in those facilities. Either the third-party should be subject to the same fines, or the governmental entity that owns the facility would still be subject to the same fines, even if the third-party is preventing licensed carry. Licensed carriers need something with substance to go after these third-parties that are deliberately going against the legislative intent of 411.209, and the governmental entities that allow them to do so.

[*]3. Remove all of the so-called "gun free zones" defined in 46.03 and 46.035.[/list]
I think these should about cover it.

I'm not sure where it would fall under, but graduation ceremonies are places with large groups that keep me on high alert. So far, I've been to five high school graduations for nieces and nephews that were all held at a local university. Even with campus carry in effect the sports auditorium where these have been held is off limits. My daughter's will probably be the last high school graduation I'll attend in 2020 and then probably her college graduation several years later. What would it take for me, an LTC, to carry at such an event?
Last edited by C-dub on Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#9

Post by Russell » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am

> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that I also strongly believe in private property rights. I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

:tiphat:
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#10

Post by PriestTheRunner » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:40 am

Russell wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am
> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that I also strongly believe in private property rights. I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

:tiphat:

What about the insurance and protection ideas I posted above?


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#11

Post by Russell » Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:55 am

PriestTheRunner wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:40 am
Russell wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am
> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that I also strongly believe in private property rights. I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

:tiphat:

What about the insurance and protection ideas I posted above?

Ban the increase of insurance premiums due to the allowing or not-allowing of LTC's on the premises. Having 30.06 or 30.07 up (or not) should have no affect on premiums. Legislate that insurance may not require 30.06 or 30.07 postage.
Has this actually been an issue, and do you have any sources? I personally don't like legislating against things that aren't actually problems.


Require that employers who do not post 30.06 and 30.07 publicly may not prohibit 30.06 and 30.07 for employees (IE, if you don't exclude the public LTC's, you may not exclude employee LTCs).
Again, private property rights. If I were an employer, I should be able to control what my employees do regardless of what I allow my customers to do. If you don't like it, you're welcome to cover some of my employee's salary!


Create blanket protections for employers if a person uses a firearm in defense of self or others, and such an action was not within the employee's scope of work or job duties, then the employer is exempt and protected from litigation. IE- a person's defense of themselves cannot open the business to a lawsuit.
I agree with this.


Clarify brandishing and specify 'legal brandishing' against threats of violence
This is already in the statutes (see 9.04). I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1857
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#12

Post by flechero » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:04 am

Russell wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am
> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that . I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

:tiphat:
I also strongly believe in private property rights... but as an employee, you have invited them (bribed actually, with cash) onto your business property. Do you provide your employees armed security? A secure path between desk and parking area? Do you carry? Why would you hire someone (after a probationary period) that you can't trust?

It's already illegal to use said firearm on your property except in a case of self defense. It's like banning unopened containers in a motor vehicle. :cheers2: Because, well- you know... they could spontaneously open and pour themselves down your throat! :lol:

Property rights arguments for businesses are weakened in my opinion since they generally serve or sell to the public, in some capacity... in those cases, they should be held to the same restrictions as the general public.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17037
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#13

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:13 am

PriestTheRunner wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:24 am
. . .
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting Non-Profit Religious Institutions (Churches) from the Texas Private Security Act. Define volunteer as non paid person or a person whose function does not explicitly require security duties (IE- pastors) and receives pay for other services only.
We did this in 2017, except "volunteer" was not defined. An employee whose job duties are not primarily security-related can carry.

Chas.
Image


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 2795
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#14

Post by Russell » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:19 am

flechero wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:04 am
Russell wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:33 am
> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that . I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

:tiphat:
I also strongly believe in private property rights... but as an employee, you have invited them (bribed actually, with cash) onto your business property. Do you provide your employees armed security? A secure path between desk and parking area? Do you carry? Why would you hire someone (after a probationary period) that you can't trust?

It's already illegal to use said firearm on your property except in a case of self defense. It's like banning unopened containers in a motor vehicle. :cheers2: Because, well- you know... they could spontaneously open and pour themselves down your throat! :lol:

Property rights arguments for businesses are weakened in my opinion since they generally serve or sell to the public, in some capacity... in those cases, they should be held to the same restrictions as the general public.



While I agree with the ultimate end goal, I'll continue playing devil's advocate because I dislike government intervention in most situations :lol:


> but as an employee (I assume you mean employer actually), you have invited them (bribed actually, with cash) onto your business property.

I did not bribe. Employment is a contractually guaranteed/enforced relationship with agreed-upon benefits for both parties. The employee signed on and agreed to the terms and conditions of the relationship with the knowledge that guaranteed armed security is not outlined as provided in the contract.


> Why would you hire someone (after a probationary period) that you can't trust?

Just because I can trust my employee to stock my shelves with product does not mean I can trust them to securely carry a firearm without, for example, leaving it in the bathroom (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... y-restroom) or accidentally dropping it while break dancing during their lunch period :roll: (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 82096.html).

It's my business decision as the employer for how I want my employees to dress or behave while on the job. It is not the government's place to dictate what I do and do not trust them with.


> It's already illegal to use said firearm on your property except in a case of self defense.

Sure, but doesn't mean I as an employer shouldn't have the rights to define the employer/employee relationship as I see fit.


> Property rights arguments for businesses are weakened in my opinion since they generally serve or sell to the public, in some capacity... in those cases, they should be held to the same restrictions as the general public.

Agreed, and a business owner can currently restrict individual members of the public from carrying into the business without having to post signage. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that with their employees?
Last edited by Russell on Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 889
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Priorities for 2019 legislative session

#15

Post by crazy2medic » Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:24 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:13 am
PriestTheRunner wrote:
Mon Jun 18, 2018 10:24 am
. . .
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting Non-Profit Religious Institutions (Churches) from the Texas Private Security Act. Define volunteer as non paid person or a person whose function does not explicitly require security duties (IE- pastors) and receives pay for other services only.
We did this in 2017, except "volunteer" was not defined. An employee whose job duties are not primarily security-related can carry.

Chas.
Every Sunday since November I have sat in the back of a small church and watch the door so that others can worship in peace! Befoe this was passed what I do would have been against the law! Thanks Charles, this allows me to use my knowledge and training to protect those that would otherwise not be able to afford protection!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention

Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”