TexasCHLforum.com

I know there has been alot of talk of wishes, etc. And there really has been a pro gun movement in the legislature as far as increasing rights for gun owners and those that choose to carry lately, to include executive endorsements for certain things. My question is based on experiences of everyone here what type of legislation do you believe will pass this year increasing our rights and/or responsibilities. Additionally, I know this is a little early but has anyone heard of bills intended to be introduced?

Bryan

Charles has a list of bills he knows will be introduced intot he Texas legislature this session, some of which I am sure he he cannot discuss at this time. The one bill I am confident will be introduced (though I am not sure of the exact form) is one defining schools. It may be a definition of schools (which is the form I hope it takes), or it may say the restriction on carrying in schools does not apply to colleges. I am also fairly confident it will pass.

I think there will be another version of a parking lot bill introduced. I don't honestly see it passing because of the split within the gun community itself on this issue. There are a bunch of us that still see it as property rights versus gun rights and its chances of passing are hurt until we really get together and sort that out.

I am not sure of any other real issues that will be introduced this time around. As has been posted before by both myself and others, I would like to see chapter 46 repealed, but I kind of doubt that will happen.

srothstein wrote:The one bill I am confident will be introduced (though I am not sure of the exact form) is one defining schools. It may be a definition of schools (which is the form I hope it takes), or it may say the restriction on carrying in schools does not apply to colleges. I am also fairly confident it will pass.

I agree that a bill defining "schools" as public K-12 would have an excellent chance of passing. Private schools, from K3 through post-doctoral, would retain all the rights to post via 30.06 that any other property owner has.

I think there will be another version of a parking lot bill introduced. I don't honestly see it passing because of the split within the gun community itself on this issue. There are a bunch of us that still see it as property rights versus gun rights and its chances of passing are hurt until we really get together and sort that out.

There will never be a mend that achieves the desired goal, because Texas is, and will remain (as it should) an "at-will employment" state. A bill that says you can't fire an employee for having a gun in his or her car might work for a half dozen cases the first couple of years, then one or two every year thereafter. Employers would soon learn to fire them for other reasons, unrelated to having a gun in the car.

The best compromise would be restricting 30.06 to buildings, and/or reducing the penalty to the lowest level possible. This won't keep anyone from getting fired, but it will keep them from being prosecuted for having a gun in their car, and will reduce the penalty if they should be caught, and wouldn't endanger their CHL.

I am not sure of any other real issues that will be introduced this time around. As has been posted before by both myself and others, I would like to see chapter 46 repealed, but I kind of doubt that will happen.

I expect some form of OC legislation to be introduced, but I don't expect it to survive committee. It took a decade to get concealed carry, and another dozen years to clarify the legality of unlicensed car carry.

And like you, I would cheer the repeal of every word of PC chapter 46.

srothstein wrote:Charles has a list of bills he knows will be introduced intot he Texas legislature this session, some of which I am sure he he cannot discuss at this time. The one bill I am confident will be introduced (though I am not sure of the exact form) is one defining schools. It may be a definition of schools (which is the form I hope it takes), or it may say the restriction on carrying in schools does not apply to colleges. I am also fairly confident it will pass.

I think there will be another version of a parking lot bill introduced. I don't honestly see it passing because of the split within the gun community itself on this issue. There are a bunch of us that still see it as property rights versus gun rights and its chances of passing are hurt until we really get together and sort that out.
I am not sure of any other real issues that will be introduced this time around. As has been posted before by both myself and others, I would like to see chapter 46 repealed, but I kind of doubt that will happen.

I hope that the parking lot bill passes because I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can have in MY bought and paid for car. It is my property and I should be able to have my gym bag and/or my range bag in my car.

Ditto on defining school in PC 46.03(a)(1) as public K-12.

Ditto on some form of parking lot bill.

I would like to see violation of PC 30.06 be a class C misdemeanor. As a possible compromise, three violations in a year could result in suspension of the CHL for some time (much like a driver license when you have multiple moving violations).

I would also like to see PC 46.035 eliminated (as it has proven completely useless). This includes intentional failure to conceal and carrying in bars. If that is not politically possible, make violation a class C misdemeanor.

I understand the concern about carrying in correctional facilities. That can be dealt with by moving correctional facilities to PC 46.03.

Making these non-violent victimless offenses class A or B misdemeanors that can result in jail time and suspension of the CHL for 7 years is ridiculous. Making some of them felonies is beyond ridiculous.

All of this is my idea of a compromise on the path to any gun anywhere, which should remain our ultimate goal.

- Jim

CompVest wrote:I hope that the parking lot bill passes because I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can have in MY bought and paid for car. It is my property and I should be able to have my gym bag and/or my range bag in my car.

That's why I have trouble understanding the "property rights of owners" argument as it relates to parking lots.

Just because they may not be appropriate IN the workplace does not mean a person should be terminated because they have a box of bibles in the trunk of their car. The property owner's rights do NOT extend INTO my vehicle or my body.

I really don't see this as a property rights issue. There are already a number of laws governing parking lots for business owners. Some are for equal access (handicap slots), others for public protection (fire lanes). This one falls under the issue of public protection. More armed law abiding citizens equals less crime.

At the very least I would like to see the law written such that it protects visitors (i.e. all non-employees can lock a weapon in their car in the business' lot). Very often a visitor does not know whether a business is going to prohibit handguns in the lots or not until arriving. If the nearest legal lot is some distance away, the visitor may not be able to use the facility at all (especially if the CHL holder is handicapped). This scenario I would put under the category of equal access.

So interesting question: can a business owner run afoul of ADA if they prohibit a handicapped CHL holder from locking their weapon in their car? Could ADA become our friend here? Any case law yet?

As far as bills introduced, I know of a few that I think will see the full Legislature at least:
* Open carry (OCDO is making some serious waves in that arena including a draft bill, and the issue has gotten national news attention; I'm sure it will at least be given floor time)
* Definition of schools (Private's private and public's public; State law governs carry in public schools, and private schools should post a 30.06 like any other business)
* Concealed Carry on Campus (This hasn't gotten as much attention down here specifically, but after VT and NIU there's a far more national movement headed by SCCC that is making headway)
* Reorg of the DPS budget for more clerks and app processors
* Lower costs for CHL applications (the State of Texas is making a killing off of us. Think about it: 250k CHL holders that will each pay $70 sometime in the next four years, that's roughly $17.5 million, bout $4.3 million a year, brought in by one office in Austin off of existing CHL holders alone). They may also look at a price cap for CHL courses/qualification, like they do with state inspections.
* Did we get an Emergency Powers Act like Louisiana and Mississippi did after Katrina/Rita? If not, it'll probably come up for discussion this session; something to the effect of "the declaration of a state of emergency does not trump the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments"
* If the Open Carry bill does not pass, other revisions to TPC Ch. 46 will need to be made to clarify, for instance, that it is not a crime to walk FROM your car TO your home with a gun if you don't have a permit, and possibly to specify that the gun must be concealed while heading between car and home. They'll also need to reconcile two different versions each of 46.15(a) and (b) as independent changes were made, passed and never reconciled before adjournment. If open carry does pass, this is all moot as it will be totally legal to wear a gun openly in any circumstance including between home and car.

Lodge2004 wrote:That's why I have trouble understanding the "property rights of owners" argument as it relates to parking lots.

You aren't alone. The thing is, cars on parking lots are a rather unique juxtaposition of my property on your property, and the enforcement of the parking lot owner's property rights while on his property infring on the car owner's rights everywhere else. By banning guns, the property owner effectively also bans you from having a gun in your car at any other time during a car trip that will involve parking there. The gun can't simply disappear when you turn in the driveway. Thus, the right not to have guns in parking lots infringes the rights of gun owners in places far beyond the property owner's boundaries, and thus the very strong argument is made that it is unconstitutional.

Basically, the interpretation that parking lots must have in order to work for both the property owner and the gun/car owner is that regardless of whose property you're on, for the purposes of possession you are in your own little slice of Texas when you're in your vehicle, and it's carved out of the property owner's land while your car is in the parking lot. The owner has no right to forbid you from having a handgun in your car. He can, as his prerogative, ban you personally and outright, and he can say that the gun cannot LEAVE the car while the car is in his parking lot (in other words you can technically be trespassing the moment you set foot on pavement), but he cannot tell you what to do on property other than his, and thus cannot tell you what you can have in your car.

The two high profile bills that will be filed are campus-carry and employer parking lots. Both will be very hard fought and, depending upon the election, parking lots may have a better chance of passing than you might think. It's passed in a few states now and it is likely to be better received in 2009. Again, this presumes we have a good election day. If we don't, well . . .

We probably will see an anti-gun bill attempting to greatly weaken, destroy, or outright repeal unlicensed car-carry. DAs and some police organizations will be behind this. Want to bet where CLEAT will be on this issue?

We may see an attempt to amend the Penal Code Chp. 9 to prohibit the use of deadly force to protect property, or at least the property of a 3rd person. If this is filed, then it will be a direct result of the Joe Horn case.

Campus-carry is an even more emotional issue than the original CHL bills. Fear-mongering will be at a peak on this bill. I don't believe it has passed anywhere other than Utah, although there may be 2 or 3 states where it has always been legal. But don't give up, there's more than one way to skin that cat!

Other issues also need to be addressed, such as defining "schools," clarifying the definition of "premises," and major revisions the CHL eligibility requirements and application processing. These changes would be beneficial to DPS and CHLs.

It's going to be a busy session, but what we'll be doing will depend largely on the election results. It can be either a proactive or a reactive session; it's all up to you folks.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We may see an attempt to amend the Penal Code Chp. 9 to prohibit the use of deadly force to protect property, or at least the property of a 3rd person. If this is filed, then it will be a direct result of the Joe Horn case.

This is a stickier wicket than it might seem at first sight.

PC 9 contains the justifications that LEOs use to stop or apprehend criminals. LEOs and non-LEOs have the same justifications, with the exceptions that LEOs can use deadly force to prevent escape from custody (IIRC).

If LEOs could not use deadly force to protect property when necessary, they would have fewer options in apprehending burglars and other thieves.

As always, thanks for your perspective.

- Jim

Like it or not, private property rights differ when we talk about commercial property v. non-commercial property. When a person chooses to operate commercial property, they subject themselves and their property to substantial governmental regulation that does not apply to non-commercial property. Most of those regulations either deal with safety of those on the premises (ex. fire codes), or preservation of property values of property in close proximity to the commercial property (ex. zoning laws).

Not allowing an employer to bar firearms from employees' cars does not have any impact on the owner's use of his commercial property; absolutely none. He can still use it for any activity he chooses, so long as it does not violate any laws or ordinances. This is far less intrusive than fire codes that require installation of certain, often expensive, alarms and sprinkler systems, or that prohibit certain activities such as fireworks displays, storing flammable liquids, operating a bar or SOB within X feet of a school or church. It's also less intrusive than occupancy limits virtually every business faces. Ask any restaurant owner what would have a greater impact on his business, the City of Houston's smoking ban, or an employee with a pistol in his truck. Factor in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the scope of regulation of commercial property expands dramatically, especially for new construction or extensive renovation. Currently, commercial property is heavily regulated and owners are told what they can, cannot, and must do. Telling them to keep their noses out of employees' cars has no impact on them whatsoever.

Yes, Texas is an employment-at-will state. However, you can't fire someone for being in a protected class, you can't fire them for refusing to do an illegal act, you can't fire them for making a worker's comp. claim and you can't fire them in violation of a contract of employment. Employment-at-will has limits and not firing someone for having a gun in the car is no more intrusive on one's personnel policies than the restrictions set out above. Employers can use a pretext and fire someone for having a gun, while claiming another motive. But those actions are not as easy to get away with as one might believe. (I've had clients learn that one the hard way.) Remember, contrary to popular belief and what lawyers learn in law school, you don't have to prove anything; all you have to do is make the jury believe it. (That's an over-simplification, but not by much.) Further, I personally favor a bill that would address this issue in a manner that keeps the existence of a firearm confidential, but that's just my opinion.

Please note, I'm not saying that all current regulation of commercial property is justified, but neither would I support removing all regulations and letting people die in fire-traps and elevator falls as they did before fire codes and elevator codes were enacted. I am saying that anyone who opposes a parking lot bill solely on the "private property" argument is doing so purely on a philosophical basis and not because of any impact on the employer's actual use of his property. There's nothing wrong with standing on principle, but contending that we should protect an employee's ability to defend himself on the way to and from work is also a principled argument.

Chas.

seamusTX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We may see an attempt to amend the Penal Code Chp. 9 to prohibit the use of deadly force to protect property, or at least the property of a 3rd person. If this is filed, then it will be a direct result of the Joe Horn case.

This is a stickier wicket than it might seem at first sight.

PC 9 contains the justifications that LEOs use to stop or apprehend criminals. LEOs and non-LEOs have the same justifications, with the exceptions that LEOs can use deadly force to prevent escape from custody (IIRC).

If LEOs could not use deadly force to protect property when necessary, they would have fewer options in apprehending burglars and other thieves.

As always, thanks for your perspective.

- Jim

I agree that it would be a very bad idea, but the public outcry from certain segments of the community over the Joe Horn case has prompted an emotional response that could be felt all the way to Austin. I'm also not saying it would pass, but it's just one more thing we have to address.

Chas.

Liko81 wrote:

Lodge2004 wrote:That's why I have trouble understanding the "property rights of owners" argument as it relates to parking lots.

You aren't alone. The thing is, cars on parking lots are a rather unique juxtaposition of my property on your property,

I see your point, and it is an excellent point. However I don't see it as any different or more unique than me walking down the sidewalk with my gun in my pocket. My pocket is my property, and I am walking on your property. So the property owner banning guns on his property and banning me from carrying in my pocket also effectively bans me from having a gun in my pocket at any other time during a walking trip whose destination is the property in question. This is only a unique issue to cars if we assume everyone is moving about only in cars.

Maybe it's my recent trip to the East Coast or the fact that I ride a bicycle to work, or maybe it's the new benchmark gas prices and the increasing chances that even in TX we will increase use of public transportation. But I think making the parking lot thing be about "your car is your property" misses a great opportunity to approach the problem from another angle which would defend your right to carry even with no car.

So I agree with you about the "your car = your property". But I think also "your pocket = your property" and a gun secured on your person is secure as much as it is in your car, and probably moreso.

The whole idea that a CHL holder should be disarmed when they enter one's property is predicated upon the assumption that the CHL holder themselves present a hazard if they are in possession of a gun. The fact that we allow CHL holders to be disarmed seems to me to be an admission from the state that their CHL process does not in fact effectively ensure that those who have a license are trustworthy to carry. However the facts are starkly different. I think a CHL holder's gun is much more dangerous when left out of the CHL holder's immediate control, such as in their car, than it is when it is holstered and secured on their person. A smash-n-grabber in a parking lot might steal my iPod or something else out of my car and the worst thing is it turns into property crime but if he breaks into my car and steals my gun while it is left there because some misguided property owner thought I was not to be trusted carrying it into their property, then now some random kid might be equipped for armed robbery.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Like it or not, private property rights differ when we talk about commercial property v. non-commercial property. When a person chooses to operate commercial property, they subject themselves and their property to substantial governmental regulation that does not apply to non-commercial property. Most of those regulations either deal with safety of those on the premises (ex. fire codes), or preservation of property values of property in close proximity to the commercial property (ex. zoning laws).

....I am saying that anyone who opposes a parking lot bill solely on the "private property" argument is doing so purely on a philosophical basis and not because of any impact on the employer's actual use of his property. There's nothing wrong with standing on principle, but contending that we should protect an employee's ability to defend himself on the way to and from work is also a principled argument.

Chas.

I got dog-piled on right here for saying essentially the same thing a while back.