2013 Legislative Section is now open

[Charles L. Cotton]

Bills are being pre-filed so I've opened the 2013 Texas Legislative Session sub-forum. The Bill Status Report is open and already has two pro-gun bills filed. The Bill Status Report will remain locked to make it easier for people to check the status of bills, but feel free to start threads for any of the bills. I'm not trying to limit comment on any bills, I'm just trying to keep the Bill Status Report easy to use.

Chas.

[AEA]

Thanks Charles, that's a good idea!

[johnferg69]

I know this is a sore topic on here but I'll take the plunge.
Any chance of CHL holder being allowed to open carry?

[AEA]

I would say that that has about the same chance as CHL holders being allowed to carry everywhere LEO's can.

Even with documented evidence that CHL holders are more responsible than LEO's (percentage wise).

[bizarrenormality]

I would say that that has about the same chance as CHL holders being allowed to carry everywhere LEO's can.

Even with documented evidence that CHL holders are more responsible than LEO's (percentage wise).

Anti-RKBA prejudice takes many forms.

[77346]

No Campus Carry pre-filed?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I would say that that has about the same chance as CHL holders being allowed to carry everywhere LEO's can.

Even with documented evidence that CHL holders are more responsible than LEO's (percentage wise).

Anti-RKBA prejudice takes many forms.

Constructive discussions, not tin foil hat stuff. I'm not kidding. There's too much work to do to be distracted by this stuff.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

No Campus Carry pre-filed?

Not yet, but don't let that worry you. Most bills aren't pre-filed and sometimes it's a better tactical decision not to do so. With campus-carry, it's not a big deal either way because it certainly won't be a surprise to those who oppose the entire concept.

Chas.

[johnferg69]

No Campus Carry pre-filed?

I doubt it, that would make people uncomfortable. It's all about staying under the rock...oh, I mean radar and telling ourselves how much were changing public opinion.

[tornado]

Charles, is it likely that any campus-carry bills will only cover college campuses? My kids aren't that old yet, so I'd sure like all schools removed from the no-go list. (Although I've been around long enough to understand when we have to go one step at a time.)

[Rrash]

I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.

[Heartland Patriot]

I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.

I can agree with that part. It would seem very hard to find a way to penalize municipalities, though I'm sure it can be done if the right smart and focused team puts their minds into it. However, it would seem a lot simpler to amend the law to make it VERY EXPLICIT that if a business does not post the correct signage, that the CHLer cannot be prosecuted if all other parts of the law(s) were followed, excepting refusal of spoken word warning to leave the premises.

[bizarrenormality]

I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.

I can agree with that part. It would seem very hard to find a way to penalize municipalities, though I'm sure it can be done if the right smart and focused team puts their minds into it. However, it would seem a lot simpler to amend the law to make it VERY EXPLICIT that if a business does not post the correct signage, that the CHLer cannot be prosecuted if all other parts of the law(s) were followed, excepting refusal of spoken word warning to leave the premises.

The law already explicitly says what language is required on the sign and how big the letters must be. What more do you guys want?

[Heartland Patriot]

I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.

I can agree with that part. It would seem very hard to find a way to penalize municipalities, though I'm sure it can be done if the right smart and focused team puts their minds into it. However, it would seem a lot simpler to amend the law to make it VERY EXPLICIT that if a business does not post the correct signage, that the CHLer cannot be prosecuted if all other parts of the law(s) were followed, excepting refusal of spoken word warning to leave the premises.

The law already explicitly says what language is required on the sign and how big the letters must be. What more do you guys want?

I want to know that I am protected under the law as long as I am not violating the law. Right now, it seems that there is absolutely nothing preventing a situation similar to what happened to one of our (former?) members. He didn't do anything wrong but he sure got put through the ringer before he got it all straightened out, or so it seemed to me. The law should be both a sword and a shield.

[smoothoperator]

I don't understand the urge to clarify something that's already crystal clear. I think it would be like spending effort to push through a law that says people can't be arrested for drunk driving if they're not operating a vehicle.