2013 Legislative Section is now open

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Heartland Patriot » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:49 pm

smoothoperator wrote: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.


I guess I'm not simply good enough at explaining myself, my apologies.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed“.---Mark Twain
User avatar
Heartland Patriot
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:15 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby baldeagle » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:17 pm

Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
User avatar
baldeagle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4133
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Jumping Frog » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:26 pm

baldeagle wrote:Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?

So I guess you didn't read the rest of this thread? :smilelol5:
-Bob . . . NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, TFC member, JFPO member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots.
User avatar
Jumping Frog
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4818
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby baldeagle » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:32 pm

Jumping Frog wrote:
baldeagle wrote:Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?

So I guess you didn't read the rest of this thread? :smilelol5:

Well, call me a pessimist, but after the last session, I don't hold out much hope for campus carry ever passing. Too many politicians with no guts get elected.
Last edited by baldeagle on Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
User avatar
baldeagle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4133
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:11 pm

baldeagle wrote:Charles, it doesn't look like anyone has introduced a campus carry bill. Is it officially dead now?


Not at all. Only a small percentage of bills are pre-filed prior to the beginning of the legislative session. A campus-carry bill will be filed.

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12764
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby AJSully421 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:07 pm

I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.

They say that banning CC is all about "safety" after all... right? Let's force them to be "extra safe".

I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)
Armed Citizen
AJSully421
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:40 pm

AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)


Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.
Image
User avatar
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12764
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby joelamosobadiah » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:17 pm

AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.


So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.
joelamosobadiah
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:03 am

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby AJSully421 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:53 am

joelamosobadiah wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.


So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.



Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.
Armed Citizen
AJSully421
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby AJSully421 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:55 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)


Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.


I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?
Armed Citizen
AJSully421
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby joelamosobadiah » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:05 am

AJSully421 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)


Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.


I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?

Here's the link to the thread from 2011 Legislative Session. Not sure if it answers your entire question, but lots of info on both sides there.
joelamosobadiah
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:03 am

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby joelamosobadiah » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:10 am

AJSully421 wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.


So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.



Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.


I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another. Now removing the penalty for 30.06 or lessening it to simple trespass, that I can understand. In fact I think the state has already required business owners to go to great lengths to prevent concealed carry on their premises. That is necessary to ensure CHL were properly notified and understood the desire of the business owner.

But imposing government penalties against those property owners that want to choose what happens on their property (legally), that I think is a very slippery slope I'd rather the government stay out of.
joelamosobadiah
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:03 am

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby SewTexas » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:40 pm

AJSully421 wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.


So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.



Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.



wrong...

IF I have a business and IF for some reason I choose to put up a legal sign, that is MY choice as a business owner...it is YOUR choice as a customer to do business with me or with my competition. There is absolutely NO business on this planet that has NO competition anywhere, it may be inconvenient, but you can do it.
~Tracy
Barracktose Intolerant
SewTexas
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: San Antonio area

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby TexasCajun » Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:52 pm

joelamosobadiah wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I want a bill that requires any location that posts 30.06 (or verbally enforces it) or does not allow employees to CC to have armed commissioned security guards 24/7/365 at a ratio of 25:1 of the max occupancy of that location. Anti-2A businesses will either go under, or reverse their policy.


So infringe on the rights of property owners for infringing on your 2A rights?

If you visit a place that requires you to disarm, quit visiting. If you work for somebody that doesn't allow employees to CC, go find another job. I also wish more people would be 2A friendly, but I don't think the government should legislate what a private business owner allows to happen on their own property.



Basically, yes. In the realm of competing rights, something has to give. In the current scheme, it has been decided by our representatives in Austin that property rights overrule the right to bear arms. It is my desire that the opposite be true.

Right now, businesses that desire to deny the rights that a citizen has to bear arms do not have to bear any burden or responsibility for the safety of those that they have disarmed. In a sense, they get to have it both ways. My opinion is that if you want to deny my right and ability to effectively protect myself, then you absolutely must provide another means of protection that is equal or greater than what I was providing for myself. This is not unreasonable.


I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another. Now removing the penalty for 30.06 or lessening it to simple trespass, that I can understand. In fact I think the state has already required business owners to go to great lengths to prevent concealed carry on their premises. That is necessary to ensure CHL were properly notified and understood the desire of the business owner.

But imposing government penalties against those property owners that want to choose what happens on their property (legally), that I think is a very slippery slope I'd rather the government stay out of.


This proposed security guard mandate seems eerily familiar to the federally mandated healthcare plan that dictates the type and scope of coverage that an employer will soon be compelled to provide for its employees. I don't think that's somewhere we really want to go as it would presumably invite more government participation into private enterprise. However, I do like the idea of reducing the 30.06 penalty to a simple trespass! That way 'concealed means concealed' could be meaningfully applied.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
TexasCajun
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: Deer Park, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby smoothoperator » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:05 pm

AJSully421 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)


Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.


I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?

You already said the bill would have altered "every CHL law" so I don't think we need any more examples.
smoothoperator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:15 pm

PreviousNext

Return to 2013 Texas Legislative Session

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest