TexasCHLforum.com

Got an e-mail from Whitmire yesterday. He said that he will push for this bill!!

I just thought that it was rather strange that most opposition to this bill was the fact that it did not limit itself to CHL'ers. It wasn't so much about objections to guns in cars in parking lots but the level of training and certification that the gun owner possesed.

boomstick wrote:I just thought that it was rather strange that most opposition to this bill was the fact that it did not limit itself to CHL'ers. It wasn't so much about objections to guns in cars in parking lots but the level of training and certification that the gun owner possesed.

I've been noticing that.

Perhaps with metal detectors, Lobbyists assume Legislators got their CHLs, and don't want to offend CHLs in case the Legislators are CHLs?

Was a vote taken on this today at the end of the committee meeting?

A committee substitute was voted out favorably. Keith, Sen. Ellis voted for us! I think he did it to make me look bad.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A committee substitute was voted out favorably. Keith, Sen. Ellis voted for us! I think he did it to make me look bad.

Chas.

perhaps people pestered him and he knew people were watching and calling

It isn't the smoke filled dark private meetings anymore, the Internet allows people to see what you are doing politicians

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A committee substitute was voted out favorably. Keith, Sen. Ellis voted for us! I think he did it to make me look bad.

Chas.

Wow, that is amazing Charles. Even if he did do that, I'm sure you don't have your feelings hurt to bad due to the outcome.

And, this is great news. I really think these bills have a great chance of getting passed this session. However, we can't let the pressure down. We just have to keep calling, saying thanks and respectfully request they keep them moving!!!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A committee substitute was voted out favorably. Keith, Sen. Ellis voted for us! I think he did it to make me look bad.

Chas.

Charles, I was wondering if there was some old-fashioned horsetrading going on. For a favorable vote for his bill regarding eye witness testimony (SB 121), Ellis agreed to vote for the parking lot bill.

And what does "a committee substitute" mean?

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A committee substitute was voted out favorably. Keith, Sen. Ellis voted for us! I think he did it to make me look bad.

Chas.

And what does "a committee substitute" mean?

The as-filed version of SB321 has what I call the "Farmer Brown" provision that allows employers of oilfield companies to prohibit their employees from having firearms in their vehicles when they are on Farmer Brown's property, if Farmer Brown required a no-guns paragraph in the mineral lease. The as-filed version applied the "Farmer Brown" provision only to mineral leases signed before Sept. 1, 2011. I haven't seen the committee substitute, but I have been informed that it deleted the Sept. 1, 2011 date meaning that Farmer Brown can still demand such provisions in new mineral leases. As I explained in another thread, these no-gun provisions are the result of oil field employees hunting on property without permission, sometimes killing livestock.

Chas.

Interesting, thanks

That opens a can of worms....my brother owns a 1/32 interest mineral rights, my sister owns a 1/32 interest in the same property .... wonder what happens if they disagree, if just 1 can prohibit or if all 50 owners of larger and smaller interests must all agree to prohibit .... or if just the surface rights owner prohibits ... I owned a 1/3 surface rights interest in 360 acres of cotton farms, and ...They should get rid of that entirely.

This is great news! How do bills get scheduled for a Senate vote? (I know the House has the Calendar's committee)

Can we send the Senators over to the House committee to vote the HB out of committee, too?

artx wrote:This is great news! How do bills get scheduled for a Senate vote? (I know the House has the Calendar's committee)

It's coordinated through the Lt. Governor, then goes on the Senate schedule.

Chas.

RPB wrote:That opens a can of worms....my brother owns a 1/32 interest mineral rights, my sister owns a 1/32 interest in the same property .... wonder what happens if they disagree,

I think it depends what the lease says.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The as-filed version of SB321 has what I call the "Farmer Brown" provision that allows employers of oilfield companies to prohibit their employees from having firearms in their vehicles when they are on Farmer Brown's property, if Farmer Brown required a no-guns paragraph in the mineral lease.

Even without this provision, if the problem is illegal hunting, I think Farmer Brown could post their property "no guns" and that would apply to rifles and shotguns whether or not the poachers are employees of the oil company who leased the mineral rights.

RPB wrote:Interesting, thanks

That opens a can of worms....my brother owns a 1/32 interest mineral rights, my sister owns a 1/32 interest in the same property .... wonder what happens if they disagree, if just 1 can prohibit or if all 50 owners of larger and smaller interests must all agree to prohibit .... or if just the surface rights owner prohibits ... I owned a 1/3 surface rights interest in 360 acres of cotton farms, and ...They should get rid of that entirely.

The Farmer Brown provision is a mess IMO.

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=41043" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the first place…hunting on leased lands (without permission) is NOT a widespread problem…though it does exist.

But that isn’t the real reason for this provision anyway. It is simply the “guise” under which a “deal” can be struck with Oil and Gas companies…so they won’t try to block passage of this bill.

If “hunting” were the issue…then the Texas Parks Wildlife Department needs to take care of that, right? Don’t we pay them to do just that? Hunting without permission is ALREADY illegal, why do we need the legislature involved here?

I’ll tell you why. Because…if the parking lot bill passes and becomes law….then there can be a problem. If “Farmer Brown” negotiates a no guns clause in his lease agreement , BUT…. the law states employees may have a gun in their vehicle (in the parking area), then it makes it hard for the Oil and Gas people to get the contract/lease.

Oil and Gas companies represent big money and influence; they want this “exception”. Those trying to get the bill passed DON’T need a big fight with O&G.

So…how do the O&G people get what they want…while not looking like they purposely threw their own employees under the bus (in terms of being able to protect themselves).

Well…….remember that little “hunting problem”. If we use that reason….then we can shift the blame to a few people breaking the game laws.

That way…. our employees won’t be looking to US…as the reason they can’t carry (like everyone else).

I guess they think no one will figure it out!

Come on politicians….lets at least be honest!