Senate Bill 311

[One Shot]

According to Kens 5, San Antonio:
"SAN ANTONIO -- A bill introduced by Senator Donna Campbell earlier this month would allow concealed handgun license holders to carry handguns in private hospitals. The "Clarity to Carry" bill was filed January 15, and is strikingly similar to a measure Campbell introduced in the state senate two years ago. The previous bill did not make it out of committee for a vote."
"Campbell's bill would also strike out portions of the Texas Penal Code that currently make it illegal for CHL holders to carry guns at amusement parks and places of worship.
North Texas Representative Drew Springer has introduced a measure, State Bill 695, which would allow CHL holders to carry in hospitals and nursing homes that do not have armed security guards at each entrance."
This measure is being presented as "allowing" the hospitals to remove the 3006 signs, required by state law.
Am I missing something?

[Charles L. Cotton]

SB311 (Campbell, R, A+): Relating to certain offenses involving the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders and to defenses and exceptions to the prosecution of those offenses.
Impact: Removes public hospitals and nursing homes from the statutorily off-limits list.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 1/15/15.

[C-dub]

I don't understand the need for this. They have already been, effectively, removed by requiring them to post 30.06 signs if they want to prevent CC by a CHLee. What will this accomplish that is different? They will still be able to post 30.06 signs if they want to, right?

[Keith B]

I don't understand the need for this. They have already been, effectively, removed by requiring them to post 30.06 signs if they want to prevent CC by a CHLee. What will this accomplish that is different? They will still be able to post 30.06 signs if they want to, right?

The issue is many people including some law enforcement don't completely read all the way down to section (i). By removing these sections they totally eliminate any confusion on if or if it is not prohibited. Charles may be able to add additional info on what it provides, but this is good.

[C-dub]

I don't understand the need for this. They have already been, effectively, removed by requiring them to post 30.06 signs if they want to prevent CC by a CHLee. What will this accomplish that is different? They will still be able to post 30.06 signs if they want to, right?

The issue is many people including some law enforcement don't completely read all the way down to section (i). By removing these sections they totally eliminate any confusion on if or if it is not prohibited. Charles may be able to add additional info on what it provides, but this is good.

That would make sense, but I didn't think they actually removed text.

[Keith B]

I don't understand the need for this. They have already been, effectively, removed by requiring them to post 30.06 signs if they want to prevent CC by a CHLee. What will this accomplish that is different? They will still be able to post 30.06 signs if they want to, right?

The issue is many people including some law enforcement don't completely read all the way down to section (i). By removing these sections they totally eliminate any confusion on if or if it is not prohibited. Charles may be able to add additional info on what it provides, but this is good.

That would make sense, but I didn't think they actually removed text.

The bill is to remove the text and subsection (i). Here is the markup http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

I don't understand the need for this. They have already been, effectively, removed by requiring them to post 30.06 signs if they want to prevent CC by a CHLee. What will this accomplish that is different? They will still be able to post 30.06 signs if they want to, right?

The issue is many people including some law enforcement don't completely read all the way down to section (i). By removing these sections they totally eliminate any confusion on if or if it is not prohibited. Charles may be able to add additional info on what it provides, but this is good.

That would make sense, but I didn't think they actually removed text.

The bill is to remove the text and subsection (i). Here is the markup http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excellent! So, they can strike text when they want to. I didn't think that's how it worked here.

[One Shot]

The issue is many people including some law enforcement don't completely read all the way down to section (i).

Thanks for the clarification. Hate to think what other laws they don't bother reading all the way.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Regarding hospitals and nursing homes, the only significant impact is with government hospitals and nursing homes. As long as all hospitals/nursing homes are off-limits per §46.035 when posted with a 30.06 sign, even government hospitals are off-limits. With SB311, no hospitals/nursing homes would be statutorily off-limits, meaning government facilities cannot be made off-limits by using 30.06 signs. (See §30.06(e)). It's late, I'm tired, so I'll read this again in the morning and see if it makes any sense at all.

SB311 does some other things as well.

Chas.

[SkipB]

Every little change like this is in our favor. We should b working for more change.

[Jaguar]

So if this passes, a 30.06 posted hospital where the Hospital Owner is Government - Hospital District or Authority the sign would become invalid. Excellent!