TexasCHLforum.com

Is HB508 dead in committee if not out by May 18th.? That will be a real shame!

2firfun50 wrote:Is HB508 dead in committee if not out by May 18th.? That will be a real shame!

It may be heard tomorrow.

Chas.

CJD wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:Will this affect cities passing bogus ordinances banning CHL's on city property? For example, the Rosenberg PD has a sign outside the department quoting a city ordinance (I forget the number) and saying that CHL's are not permitted.

Those ordinances are already illegal as they preempt state chl law I believe. The bill doesn't seem like it would allow civil penalties in that situation because they are not posting 30.06. However, I'm sure there is someone to contact on the matter of preemption, I just do not know.

That was my understanding as well. What is the best way to deal with illegal signs and ordinances like this? Would a polite letter to the city attorney be a good place to start?

maverick2076 wrote:

CJD wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:Will this affect cities passing bogus ordinances banning CHL's on city property? For example, the Rosenberg PD has a sign outside the department quoting a city ordinance (I forget the number) and saying that CHL's are not permitted.

Those ordinances are already illegal as they preempt state chl law I believe. The bill doesn't seem like it would allow civil penalties in that situation because they are not posting 30.06. However, I'm sure there is someone to contact on the matter of preemption, I just do not know.

That was my understanding as well. What is the best way to deal with illegal signs and ordinances like this? Would a polite letter to the city attorney be a good place to start?

If we get Hb508 thru the senate and signed, I will be reporting inappropriate signs on any local government building. To me, its not the exact wording of the sign, it is the attempts to bypass state law and restrict what has been fought for. In my opinion, HB508 should not be narrowly read, but broadly read until the Attorney General or the Courts rule otherwise.

Until ruled otherwise, HB508 should be read to apply any time a government entity tries to prevent legal CHL carry.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:Is HB508 dead in committee if not out by May 18th.? That will be a real shame!

It may be heard tomorrow.

Chas.

Mr. Cotten,
I know passage by the House is no guaranty a bill will carry both houses but, what do think the chances are it makes it out of committee and ultimately passes the Senate?

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:Is HB508 dead in committee if not out by May 18th.? That will be a real shame!

It may be heard tomorrow.

Chas.

Mr. Cotten,
I know passage by the House is no guaranty a bill will carry both houses but, what do think the chances are it makes it out of committee and ultimately passes the Senate?

I think HB508 will pass.

Chas.

maverick2076 wrote:

CJD wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:Will this affect cities passing bogus ordinances banning CHL's on city property? For example, the Rosenberg PD has a sign outside the department quoting a city ordinance (I forget the number) and saying that CHL's are not permitted.

Those ordinances are already illegal as they preempt state chl law I believe. The bill doesn't seem like it would allow civil penalties in that situation because they are not posting 30.06. However, I'm sure there is someone to contact on the matter of preemption, I just do not know.

That was my understanding as well. What is the best way to deal with illegal signs and ordinances like this? Would a polite letter to the city attorney be a good place to start?

Currently, it is not illegal to post an unenforceable 30.06 sign; that's why HB508 was filed. Any sign that mentions either TPC 30.06 or concealed handgun licensees comes within the scope of HB507. (See HB508 Section 1, Pg. 1, §411.209(a).)

Chas.

Is the change to 46.035 just cleaning up the wording or is there a bigger change there I'm not seeing.

e-bil wrote:Is the change to 46.035 just cleaning up the wording or is there a bigger change there I'm not seeing.

It's an important change, but I would argue that it's a clarification directed at intellectually dishonest people. It makes it clear that 1) only meetings that are subject to the Open Meetings Act are off-limits (not two guys having coffee and talking shop); and 2) only the rooms in use, rather than the entire building, are off-limits.

The definition of "premises" created in SB60 in 1995 expressly states in part ". . . building or portion of a building . . ." This language was intended to be a limitation on the areas of a building that were off-limits, but intellectually dishonest people treat the "portion of a building" phrase not as a limitation, but as a trigger to render the entire building off-limits. It reminds me of a question one of my sons asked me when they were young. "Dad, why don't people just do what they are supposed to do?" My response, "If they did, I wouldn't have a job."

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

e-bil wrote:Is the change to 46.035 just cleaning up the wording or is there a bigger change there I'm not seeing.

It's an important change, but I would argue that it's a clarification directed at intellectually dishonest people. It makes it clear that 1) only meetings that are subject to the Open Meetings Act are off-limits (not two guys having coffee and talking shop); and 2) only the rooms in use, rather than the entire building, are off-limits.

The definition of "premises" created in SB60 in 1995 expressly states in part ". . . building or portion of a building . . ." This language was intended to be a limitation on the areas of a building that were off-limits, but intellectually dishonest people treat the "portion of a building" phrase not as a limitation, but as a trigger to render the entire building off-limits. It reminds me of a question one of my sons asked me when they were young. "Dad, why don't people just do what they are supposed to do?" My response, "If they did, I wouldn't have a job."

Chas.

You are very kind in your label "intellectually dishonest people". I find myself thinking and sometimes using harsher terms when I have dealt with this issue, but you have influenced me to rethink that.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

e-bil wrote:Is the change to 46.035 just cleaning up the wording or is there a bigger change there I'm not seeing.

It's an important change, but I would argue that it's a clarification directed at intellectually dishonest people. It makes it clear that 1) only meetings that are subject to the Open Meetings Act are off-limits (not two guys having coffee and talking shop); and 2) only the rooms in use, rather than the entire building, are off-limits.

The definition of "premises" created in SB60 in 1995 expressly states in part ". . . building or portion of a building . . ." This language was intended to be a limitation on the areas of a building that were off-limits, but intellectually dishonest people treat the "portion of a building" phrase not as a limitation, but as a trigger to render the entire building off-limits. It reminds me of a question one of my sons asked me when they were young. "Dad, why don't people just do what they are supposed to do?" My response, "If they did, I wouldn't have a job."

Chas.

Thank you sir. :)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:

CJD wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:Will this affect cities passing bogus ordinances banning CHL's on city property? For example, the Rosenberg PD has a sign outside the department quoting a city ordinance (I forget the number) and saying that CHL's are not permitted.

Those ordinances are already illegal as they preempt state chl law I believe. The bill doesn't seem like it would allow civil penalties in that situation because they are not posting 30.06. However, I'm sure there is someone to contact on the matter of preemption, I just do not know.

That was my understanding as well. What is the best way to deal with illegal signs and ordinances like this? Would a polite letter to the city attorney be a good place to start?

Currently, it is not illegal to post an unenforceable 30.06 sign; that's why HB508 was filed. Any sign that mentions either TPC 30.06 or concealed handgun licensees comes within the scope of HB507. (See HB508 Section 1, Pg. 1, §411.209(a).)

Chas.

Right, and I get that and fully support the bill. What the Rosenberg PD has posted is a sign referencing "Rosenberg City Ordinance XXX-XXX" (I didn't write the number down) stating that CHL's are not allowed. IT is my understanding that this sort of ordinance is already illegal, is it not? What is the best way to deal with this?

maverick2076 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:

CJD wrote:

maverick2076 wrote:Will this affect cities passing bogus ordinances banning CHL's on city property? For example, the Rosenberg PD has a sign outside the department quoting a city ordinance (I forget the number) and saying that CHL's are not permitted.

Those ordinances are already illegal as they preempt state chl law I believe. The bill doesn't seem like it would allow civil penalties in that situation because they are not posting 30.06. However, I'm sure there is someone to contact on the matter of preemption, I just do not know.

That was my understanding as well. What is the best way to deal with illegal signs and ordinances like this? Would a polite letter to the city attorney be a good place to start?

Currently, it is not illegal to post an unenforceable 30.06 sign; that's why HB508 was filed. Any sign that mentions either TPC 30.06 or concealed handgun licensees comes within the scope of HB507. (See HB508 Section 1, Pg. 1, §411.209(a).)

Chas.

Right, and I get that and fully support the bill. What the Rosenberg PD has posted is a sign referencing "Rosenberg City Ordinance XXX-XXX" (I didn't write the number down) stating that CHL's are not allowed. IT is my understanding that this sort of ordinance is already illegal, is it not? What is the best way to deal with this?

You have two choices, 1) ignore it; or 2) wait until HB508 becomes law (9/1/13) then send a certified letter to the City Manager with a copy to the AG's office complaining about the sign. The reference to a city ordinance that mentions CHL's should come within the scope of HB508, but it is less clear than if the reference were on the sign itself.

Chas.

I'll try to go by and get a picture of the sign and post it here so you can seee the exact wording.

maverick2076 wrote:I'll try to go by and get a picture of the sign and post it here so you can seee the exact wording.

I just read your original post again and I may be mistaken about the sign's wording. Does it mention concealed handguns, or only a city ordinance? If it mentions concealed handguns or concealed handgun licensees then it clearly comes within the scope of HB508.

Chas.