Page 10 of 12
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:34 pm
by Jasonw560
mgood wrote:What if they attach an amendment to allow all CHLs on their third renewal to enjoy the same elitist perks and that gets accepted . . . then someone immediately offers another amendment to allow these same advantages to all CHLs? What if something like that is brewing and that's what he can't talk about?
Great. You just gave it away. Remind me to never tell you about anyone's surprise party.
I was actually mulling over that same thought earlier this morning.
It just has to come out of calendars and get voted on now.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 2:40 pm
by Jasonw560
Calendars met about 2 minutes ago. So that means they're out now.
Wonder if they'll pull SB905 out for a vote?
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 3:00 pm
by artx
Jasonw560 wrote:Calendars met about 2 minutes ago. So that means they're out now.
Wonder if they'll pull SB905 out for a vote?
Has the committee hearing happened yet? Believe that was scheduled for today. You won't see it go to calenders until after the hearing. The status will change to notify the committee report sent to calendars etc.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 3:46 pm
by Jasonw560
Daily calendar for Friday up. No other one so far, and no parking lot bill.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 3:53 pm
by hirundo82
artx wrote:Jasonw560 wrote:Calendars met about 2 minutes ago. So that means they're out now.
Wonder if they'll pull SB905 out for a vote?
Has the committee hearing happened yet? Believe that was scheduled for today. You won't see it go to calenders until after the hearing. The status will change to notify the committee report sent to calendars etc.
According to the website it is scheduled to be heard today, but
according to the committee schedule they heard it yesterday. Regardless, it hasn't been reported as recieved in Calendars.
ETA: I just noticed
hearing minutes are posted. SB905 was heard yesterday in Criminal Jurisprudence; Ms. Mica with the NRA testified in favor. It was amended unanimously (amendment offered by
Aliseda, an A-rated freshman Republican) and reported favorably.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 4:25 pm
by artx
hirundo82 wrote:artx wrote:Jasonw560 wrote:Calendars met about 2 minutes ago. So that means they're out now.
Wonder if they'll pull SB905 out for a vote?
Has the committee hearing happened yet? Believe that was scheduled for today. You won't see it go to calenders until after the hearing. The status will change to notify the committee report sent to calendars etc.
According to the website it is scheduled to be heard today, but
according to the committee schedule they heard it yesterday. Regardless, it hasn't been reported as recieved in Calendars.
ETA: I just noticed
hearing minutes are posted. SB905 was heard yesterday in Criminal Jurisprudence; Ms. Mica with the NRA testified in favor. It was amended unanimously (amendment offered by
Aliseda, an A-rated freshman Republican, and reported favorably.
I wonder what the amendment was!!! Too bad the website can take a few days to update.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 9:51 pm
by CWOOD
The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.
You can read the engrossed bill as it came from the Senate (PDF format) here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00905E.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To watch what they did you can go the to video archive site of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and click on the meeting for yesterday, 5-16-11. You can do this here:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... session=82" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Advance the timer to 9.45 minutes where they begin discussion of SB905. The feed times out at about one and a half minutes, but just keep track of where you are on the timeline, restart and advance to where you left off.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Tue May 17, 2011 10:25 pm
by apostate
CWOOD wrote:The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.
Very nice. The amendment by Rep. Aliseda (?) limits it to USA/AUSA to mirror the existing exemption for DA/ADA/etc.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 8:10 am
by JJVP
CWOOD wrote:The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.
Does that mean that Perry would not be exempt since he is an elected official? Yeah, he'll sign that, Not.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:23 am
by hirundo82
JJVP wrote:CWOOD wrote:The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.
Does that mean that Perry would not be exempt since he is an elected official? Yeah, he'll sign that, Not.
I expect that he has had a CHL for a long time, so he may be covered if the Kleinschmidt amendment goes through.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 11:58 am
by hirundo82
apostate wrote:The amendment by Rep. Aliseda (?) limits it to USA/AUSA to mirror the existing exemption for DA/ADA/etc.
Except the existing law also has a §46.15 exception for judges, DA's, ADA's, etc. with a CHL, which allows them to carry anywhere a LEO can. Unless the amendment did more than remove elected officials and civilian DPS employees, the USAs and AUSAs wouldn't be able to do the same.
Edited for brevity:
Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure
(4) a judge or justice of a federal court, the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(5) an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator
(6) a district attorney, criminal district attorney, county attorney, or municipal attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(7) an assistant district attorney, assistant criminal district attorney, or assistant county attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 2:39 pm
by Ameer
CWOOD wrote:http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... session=82
Advance the timer to 9.45 minutes where they begin discussion of SB905. The feed times out at about one and a half minutes, but just keep track of where you are on the timeline, restart and advance to where you left off.
Thanks for the link. I liked how the chair explained the amendment, in the context of the existing law it would change. I wasn't impressed by the woman who testified for the bill. I can support the version that passed the house committee a lot easier than the garbage that passed the senate.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 6:53 pm
by TexasBill
Never did have a problem with extended privileges for judges and similar officials - they really do have a higher risk of attack and their jobs are full-time. A judge up in New York was killed by a retired NYPD captain upset over the fact his daughter lost a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Frankly, I have never understood why judges didn't have the same carry privileges as peace officers.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:30 pm
by hirundo82
TexasBill wrote:Frankly, I have never understood why judges didn't have the same carry privileges as peace officers.
They do in Texas. See my post above.
Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905
Posted: Thu May 19, 2011 11:15 pm
by apostate
hirundo82 wrote:apostate wrote:The amendment by Rep. Aliseda (?) limits it to USA/AUSA to mirror the existing exemption for DA/ADA/etc.
Except the existing law also has a §46.15 exception for judges, DA's, ADA's, etc. with a CHL, which allows them to carry anywhere a LEO can. Unless the amendment did more than remove elected officials and civilian DPS employees, the USAs and AUSAs wouldn't be able to do the same.
That's right. The scope of the engrossed senate bill was limited to 46.035 restrictions.
The version of the bill that passed the house committee adds the part in blue to 46.035.
It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was:
(1) a judge or justice of a federal court;
(2) an active judicial officer, as defined by Section 411.201, Government Code; [or]
(3) a district attorney, assistant district attorney, criminal district attorney, assistant criminal district attorney, county attorney, or assistant county attorney;
(4) a United States attorney or an assistant United States attorney.