TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tx85 wrote:H Reported favorably as substituted

What did the House Committee change? Now the bill to go back to the Senate...

It defined "school" as an accredited primary or secondary school.

Chas.

Ah. So daycare and preschool carry would be good to go I believe.

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tx85 wrote:H Reported favorably as substituted

What did the House Committee change? Now the bill to go back to the Senate...

It defined "school" as an accredited primary or secondary school.

Chas.

Ah. So daycare and preschool carry would be good to go I believe.

Correct, but remember that SB349 doesn't change current law. It merely clarifies it to prevent local liars from abusing TPC §46.03(a)(1).

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tx85 wrote:H Reported favorably as substituted

What did the House Committee change? Now the bill to go back to the Senate...

It defined "school" as an accredited primary or secondary school.

Chas.

Ah. So daycare and preschool carry would be good to go I believe.

Correct, but remember that SB349 doesn't change current law. It merely clarifies it to prevent local liars from abusing TPC §46.03(a)(1).

Chas.

But doesn't current law state that "educational institutions" are off limits, and that term is not defined as of right now? So couldn't one possibly be prosecuted for carrying in a daycare right now? My 2 year old learns a lot at her day care.

Really people? Just let it go.... let senate read and pass. Then we can nit pick. "Your" making this harder than it has to be. At this point, just trust Charles...

Goodbye zoo schools, museum schools, TABC licensee schools. At it's heart the Fort Worth Zoo is an educational institution...

TreyHouston wrote:Really people? Just let it go.... let senate read and pass. Then we can nit pick. "Your" making this harder than it has to be. At this point, just trust Charles...

If agents of the State are willing to completely ignore the plain language of the law (they are) and the courts are willing to ignore it as well, there is nothing one can do. Presumably any clarification such as in SB 349 will help. But at the end of the day I guess someone will have to be a "test case".

Sunday school, home school, beauty school, flight school, old school

TreyHouston wrote:Really people? Just let it go.... let senate read and pass. Then we can nit pick. "Your" making this harder than it has to be. At this point, just trust Charles...

I'm not nit picking anything, I was going over what the current penal code says. I'm not arguing at all, merely inquiring. Thanks.

ScottDLS wrote:Goodbye zoo schools, museum schools, TABC licensee schools. At it's heart the Fort Worth Zoo is an educational institution...

Exactly!

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tx85 wrote:H Reported favorably as substituted

What did the House Committee change? Now the bill to go back to the Senate...

It defined "school" as an accredited primary or secondary school.

Chas.

Ah. So daycare and preschool carry would be good to go I believe.

Correct, but remember that SB349 doesn't change current law. It merely clarifies it to prevent local liars from abusing TPC §46.03(a)(1).

Chas.

But doesn't current law state that "educational institutions" are off limits, and that term is not defined as of right now? So couldn't one possibly be prosecuted for carrying in a daycare right now? My 2 year old learns a lot at her day care.

While current state law includes "educational institutions" as one of the prohibited areas, the term is not defined, as you noted. When the session is over, I'll go into this again.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tx85 wrote:H Reported favorably as substituted

What did the House Committee change? Now the bill to go back to the Senate...

It defined "school" as an accredited primary or secondary school.

Chas.

Ah. So daycare and preschool carry would be good to go I believe.

Correct, but remember that SB349 doesn't change current law. It merely clarifies it to prevent local liars from abusing TPC §46.03(a)(1).

Chas.

But doesn't current law state that "educational institutions" are off limits, and that term is not defined as of right now? So couldn't one possibly be prosecuted for carrying in a daycare right now? My 2 year old learns a lot at her day care.

While current state law includes "educational institutions" as one of the prohibited areas, the term is not defined, as you noted. When the session is over, I'll go into this again.

Chas.

I think if this bill passes as it stands right now, clarification would no longer be needed. Fingers crossed and ready to send communications to my congress critters whenever it is needed.

I just got word that this bill is dead. Can anyone confirm?

Edited to add: actually just heard that most bills not on the governor's and Dan Patrick's short list are going to die in calendars. Again, this is just what I heard.

If I'm reading things correctly, this bill is dead since it was not placed on the House Daily Calendar by 10:00 PM last night.

locke_n_load wrote:I just got word that this bill is dead. Can anyone confirm?

Edited to add: actually just heard that most bills not on the governor's and Dan Patrick's short list are going to die in calendars. Again, this is just what I heard.

This is correct and I'm furious! It was prefiled in December, but didn't get a hearing in committee until 4/24/17. Then it didn't get to the Senate floor until 5/9/17. The Bill didn't change current law; it prevented dishonest people from abusing the current law to the extreme prejudice of law-abiding LTCs. There's absolutely no excuse for letting this Bill die.

Chas.

What a shame.

I expect huge losses for the Republican Party, both at the State and Federal level in the upcoming elections.

To those who worked hard for this bill (and many other great pro-2A bills), I say thank you. I can only imagine the vitreal aimed against you as you fought for our Rights.

To those who paraded their own egos around and contributed to the fall of this bill (and many other great pro-2A bills), I say that We are onto you and We don't care if you carry an "R" or an "D" behind your name. We will fight tooth and nail to get your behinds out of Our chambers, you bums.

There should be a "M" for Marxist behind your names.