2013 Legislative Section is now open

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

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

2013 Legislative Section is now open

#1

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Bills are being pre-filed so I've opened the 2013 Texas Legislative Session sub-forum. The Bill Status Report is open and already has two pro-gun bills filed. The Bill Status Report will remain locked to make it easier for people to check the status of bills, but feel free to start threads for any of the bills. I'm not trying to limit comment on any bills, I'm just trying to keep the Bill Status Report easy to use.

Chas.
User avatar

AEA
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5110
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#2

Post by AEA »

Thanks Charles, that's a good idea!
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only.
Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1
1911's RULE!

johnferg69
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: Almost to the goat lovers!

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#3

Post by johnferg69 »

I know this is a sore topic on here but I'll take the plunge.
Any chance of CHL holder being allowed to open carry?
User avatar

AEA
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5110
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:00 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#4

Post by AEA »

I would say that that has about the same chance as CHL holders being allowed to carry everywhere LEO's can.

Even with documented evidence that CHL holders are more responsible than LEO's (percentage wise).
Alan - ANYTHING I write is MY OPINION only.
Certified Curmudgeon - But, my German Shepherd loves me!
NRA-Life, USN '65-'69 & '73-'79: RM1
1911's RULE!

bizarrenormality

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#5

Post by bizarrenormality »

AEA wrote:I would say that that has about the same chance as CHL holders being allowed to carry everywhere LEO's can.

Even with documented evidence that CHL holders are more responsible than LEO's (percentage wise).
:iagree: Anti-RKBA prejudice takes many forms.
User avatar

77346
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: Atascocita, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#6

Post by 77346 »

No Campus Carry pre-filed? :shock:
Alex
NRA Benefactor Life & TSRA Life Member
Bay Area Shooting Club Member
CHL since 7/12 | 28 days mailbox-to-mailbox
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#7

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

bizarrenormality wrote:
AEA wrote:I would say that that has about the same chance as CHL holders being allowed to carry everywhere LEO's can.

Even with documented evidence that CHL holders are more responsible than LEO's (percentage wise).
:iagree: Anti-RKBA prejudice takes many forms.
Constructive discussions, not tin foil hat stuff. I'm not kidding. There's too much work to do to be distracted by this stuff.

Chas.
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#8

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

77346 wrote:No Campus Carry pre-filed? :shock:
Not yet, but don't let that worry you. Most bills aren't pre-filed and sometimes it's a better tactical decision not to do so. With campus-carry, it's not a big deal either way because it certainly won't be a surprise to those who oppose the entire concept.

Chas.

johnferg69
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: Almost to the goat lovers!

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#9

Post by johnferg69 »

77346 wrote:No Campus Carry pre-filed? :shock:
I doubt it, that would make people uncomfortable. It's all about staying under the rock...oh, I mean radar and telling ourselves how much were changing public opinion.
User avatar

tornado
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#10

Post by tornado »

Charles, is it likely that any campus-carry bills will only cover college campuses? My kids aren't that old yet, so I'd sure like all schools removed from the no-go list. (Although I've been around long enough to understand when we have to go one step at a time.)

Rrash
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 483
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 1:25 am
Location: McKinney

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#11

Post by Rrash »

I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.

Heartland Patriot

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#12

Post by Heartland Patriot »

Rrash wrote:I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.
I can agree with that part. It would seem very hard to find a way to penalize municipalities, though I'm sure it can be done if the right smart and focused team puts their minds into it. However, it would seem a lot simpler to amend the law to make it VERY EXPLICIT that if a business does not post the correct signage, that the CHLer cannot be prosecuted if all other parts of the law(s) were followed, excepting refusal of spoken word warning to leave the premises.

bizarrenormality

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#13

Post by bizarrenormality »

Heartland Patriot wrote:
Rrash wrote:I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.
I can agree with that part. It would seem very hard to find a way to penalize municipalities, though I'm sure it can be done if the right smart and focused team puts their minds into it. However, it would seem a lot simpler to amend the law to make it VERY EXPLICIT that if a business does not post the correct signage, that the CHLer cannot be prosecuted if all other parts of the law(s) were followed, excepting refusal of spoken word warning to leave the premises.
The law already explicitly says what language is required on the sign and how big the letters must be. What more do you guys want?

Heartland Patriot

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#14

Post by Heartland Patriot »

bizarrenormality wrote:
Heartland Patriot wrote:
Rrash wrote:I'd love to see some sort of bill that either penalizes municipalities that invalidly post 30.06 and/or some sort of immunity of prosecution of an invalid sign for CHL's.
I can agree with that part. It would seem very hard to find a way to penalize municipalities, though I'm sure it can be done if the right smart and focused team puts their minds into it. However, it would seem a lot simpler to amend the law to make it VERY EXPLICIT that if a business does not post the correct signage, that the CHLer cannot be prosecuted if all other parts of the law(s) were followed, excepting refusal of spoken word warning to leave the premises.
The law already explicitly says what language is required on the sign and how big the letters must be. What more do you guys want?
I want to know that I am protected under the law as long as I am not violating the law. Right now, it seems that there is absolutely nothing preventing a situation similar to what happened to one of our (former?) members. He didn't do anything wrong but he sure got put through the ringer before he got it all straightened out, or so it seemed to me. The law should be both a sword and a shield.

smoothoperator
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:15 pm

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

#15

Post by smoothoperator »

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.
Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”