TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

The "public place" language seems to allow BBQ guns at private parties.

sounds like it was a successful day

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!