Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

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

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


e-bil
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby e-bil » Mon May 06, 2013 7:23 am

IIRC, it means that it has been tabled but they can bring it back up again at a later time. I am a little rusty on my rules of order though.


jerry_r60
Senior Member
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby jerry_r60 » Mon May 06, 2013 12:20 pm

St1cky wrote:How is SB299 any better for us than 1304?? I see a few words added and nothing that sounds helpful. Basically if im out in public and I reach up and scratch my head and my shirt tail rises above my gun handle then I've still committed a crime. Anyone care to explain a scenario that shows how 299 is an improvement??


If I'm understanding the rules, it's better from the perspective that it had already passed teh Senate so voting on it is a done deal, other than the Governors signature. No need for the Senate to vote on the HB or any kind of reconciliation committee.

I also like the additional verbiage of "in a public place". Not sure it really matters but the more limit on when the exposure is a crime, the better.


recaffeination
Senior Member
Posts: 586
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:07 pm

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby recaffeination » Mon May 06, 2013 12:57 pm

The "public place" language seems to allow BBQ guns at private parties. :biggrinjester:
This message was misspelled by my Apple mobile device.


Justinbhutto
Junior Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby Justinbhutto » Tue May 07, 2013 1:36 pm

sounds like it was a successful day

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16700
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue May 07, 2013 1:44 pm

jerry_r60 wrote:
St1cky wrote:How is SB299 any better for us than 1304?? I see a few words added and nothing that sounds helpful. Basically if im out in public and I reach up and scratch my head and my shirt tail rises above my gun handle then I've still committed a crime. Anyone care to explain a scenario that shows how 299 is an improvement??


If I'm understanding the rules, it's better from the perspective that it had already passed teh Senate so voting on it is a done deal, other than the Governors signature. No need for the Senate to vote on the HB or any kind of reconciliation committee.

I also like the additional verbiage of "in a public place". Not sure it really matters but the more limit on when the exposure is a crime, the better.


Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.
Image


locke_n_load
Senior Member
Posts: 932
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby locke_n_load » Tue May 07, 2013 3:17 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
jerry_r60 wrote:
St1cky wrote:How is SB299 any better for us than 1304?? I see a few words added and nothing that sounds helpful. Basically if im out in public and I reach up and scratch my head and my shirt tail rises above my gun handle then I've still committed a crime. Anyone care to explain a scenario that shows how 299 is an improvement??


If I'm understanding the rules, it's better from the perspective that it had already passed teh Senate so voting on it is a done deal, other than the Governors signature. No need for the Senate to vote on the HB or any kind of reconciliation committee.

I also like the additional verbiage of "in a public place". Not sure it really matters but the more limit on when the exposure is a crime, the better.


Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.


So Chas, under current law, it's something like this:
Someone is breaking into my truck in the daytime, I can't tell if they're armed, I could only draw on them and tell them to stand down if they produced a weapon or I felt that my life was threatened, which would be hard to prove.

But if SB299 passes as-is, it would be something like this:
Someone is breaking into my truck in the daytime, and if my goal is apprehend the individual or stop the crime, I can draw my weapon and stop the individual, although deadly force is not warranted (at least not yet).

And this is a very general example, I know that other technicalities can be present with theft.
"They that would give up Essential Liberty, for a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

EDC - Glock 26 Gen IV
CHL Holder since 10/08

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16700
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Tue May 07, 2013 3:51 pm

locke_n_load wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
jerry_r60 wrote:
St1cky wrote:How is SB299 any better for us than 1304?? I see a few words added and nothing that sounds helpful. Basically if im out in public and I reach up and scratch my head and my shirt tail rises above my gun handle then I've still committed a crime. Anyone care to explain a scenario that shows how 299 is an improvement??


If I'm understanding the rules, it's better from the perspective that it had already passed teh Senate so voting on it is a done deal, other than the Governors signature. No need for the Senate to vote on the HB or any kind of reconciliation committee.

I also like the additional verbiage of "in a public place". Not sure it really matters but the more limit on when the exposure is a crime, the better.


Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.


So Chas, under current law, it's something like this:
Someone is breaking into my truck in the daytime, I can't tell if they're armed, I could only draw on them and tell them to stand down if they produced a weapon or I felt that my life was threatened, which would be hard to prove.

But if SB299 passes as-is, it would be something like this:
Someone is breaking into my truck in the daytime, and if my goal is apprehend the individual or stop the crime, I can draw my weapon and stop the individual, although deadly force is not warranted (at least not yet).

And this is a very general example, I know that other technicalities can be present with theft.



Correct on both points. Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

Jumping Frog
Senior Member
Posts: 5485
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby Jumping Frog » Tue May 07, 2013 5:57 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Also, SB299 statutorily reverses the horrible decision of the Dallas Court of Appeals in the McDermott case by adding the words "force or" before "deadly." This properly allows CHLs to rely upon Tex. Penal Code §9.04 to defuse a situation, contrary to the holding in McDermott. This is no minor change in Texas law.

Boy, this is huge!
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots. Can't we find an electable (R) for 2016?


Hercowboy606
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Gun Bill Saturday - May 4th

Postby Hercowboy606 » Tue May 07, 2013 10:17 pm

The language differences between SB299 and HB1304 may seem small but that is far from the fact. As Mr. Cotton has already spoken to, the "force or" addition before "deadly is a big deal. It is also important to note the language is SB299 clearly deals with printing. "Intentional displays in plain view". HB1304 was missing key words here. I was worried that HB1304 would be the bill passed. Boy was I relieved yesterday when they tabled it for the companion SB299. This was a very important bill for CHL holders... Very. Thanks to all who worked in getting this through the political wood chopping! :patriot:


Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest