TexasCHLforum.com

fizteach wrote:...and how does this bill help or hurt those of us who are teachers in public schools and wish to leave our handguns in our vehicles on designated teacher parking lots?

1) It's a step in the right direction.

2) We all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

3) If you wait for a perfect bill to support, you may miss the chance to get a lot of good bills passed.

The so-called privare property rights objection is a red herring in my opinion.

It is recognized in the law that business property is subject to regulation far beyond that of ordinary private property such as a private home or a land holding. Businesses have to provide access to the disabled, for instance. Smoking may be regulated or banned. Hours of operation may be regulated. Racial discrimination may not be practiced. You can't have a hotel that had two swimming pools for instance, one of which was "whites only".

In short, most business property qualifies as a "public accommodation".

While this may not be strictly true of employee parking facilities, most of the same arguments apply. In places where there is no street parking, the company lot or garage is the only game in town. And saying, "you don't have to work there" is no different than saying (to a minority), "you don't have to swim there".

Finally, as many have pointed out, this case represents a collision of competing private property rights. The employee has a full-fledged private property right in his vehicle. Except in certain circumstances, even the government may not search it without a warrant, for instance.

And the business lobby is saying that THEY can?

It's nonsense.

SB534 isn't perfect, but it's a good start.

I'm sure most people got the NRA-ILA Alert this weekend. The time is NOW to make your phone calls, send your emails and snailmails to get this bill out of the Calendars Committee before it dies for the second cycle in a row.

Just follow this link.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=2972

We need to contact Rep. Beverly Woolley, Chair of the Calendars Committee to urge her to get SB534 to the House Floor for a vote.

Here's the link to her webpage.

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/di ... oolley.htm

Right2Carry wrote:One also has to wonder about promotion opportunities if the employer is not friendly to CHL's. I just hate the fact that there will be a requirement to notify the employer.

I'm not crazy about it either.

I suspect that it was one of those "throw ins" intended to reduce the intensity of the opposition from the business interests.

At this point, I would take it if it means we would get a bill. It can always be amended as time passes and horror stories fail to materialize.

And I am not as concerned as others that "everyone" would know you were packing in your car. I think the employer would keep that information confidential as they do other personal information (medical, your salary, etc.)

I think anyone who works for a medium or large company would have nothing to worry about. Their legal dept. will tell them that if a pattern develops where CHL's get preferrentially whacked, they can expect to be making a huge class action payout down the road.

People have won awards with far less justification than that.

People who work for smaller companies might have more problems, especially if the owner is anti-2nd amendment.

Finally, as Charles has correctly pointed out, SB534 is the only bill of this type that has any chance at all of passage this session. Let's not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. It is now in the Calendars Committee. Call the Chairman (Rep. Wooley) and tell her office that you want to see this bill get a vote on the House floor.

She seems lukewarm to this bill at best. We need to push her as hard as we can.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The as-filed bill gave the defendant a statutory right to recover all defense costs, including attorney fees.

Chas.

If that's the case, then I like the final version better. To me, immunity is better than an affirmative defense with right to recover fees. If a suit can't be won, no lawyer working on a contingent fee will file it.

And any suit filed by a lawyer on retainer (unusual in the liability biz) would be subject to summary dismissal, IMO. (Note: I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice here.)

But I guess we can agree to disagree on this.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No, the version passed is not as good as originally filed. The "loser pays" provisions were the cause of the Texas Trial Lawyers' intense opposition to the bill and an attorney member of the committee was holding it up until those provisions were removed.

.........................

The current law does mean a plaintiff cannot win a suit, if the deadly force was justified under Chp. 9. It also means he will lose early on, rather than after months of costly litigation. It is even more likely that no attorney will take the case; we have no desire to pour money into a case with no chance to win. This is a major improvement. Another major improvement is the expansion of civil immunity to all justifiable use of deadly force, not just when it is used in your home.

We have an excellent Castle Doctrine - I'll call it a greatly expanded Castle Doctrine.

Chas.

Charles, I'm confused. Given your comment that "This is a major improvement.", where you seem to agree with me, you also state that the version passed was not as good as the original.

What was in the original version that made it better?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Again, I understand your concern and if SB534 passes, I wouldn't advocate anyone take advantage of the bill, if they feel it is imprudent. However, that's a personal choice and undoubtedly many people will choose to provide the employer notice. For them, SB534 will be a very beneficial change to Texas employment law.

gmckinl wrote:. . . With an immunity clause for the employer, . . .

Just watch, that provision won't be there if it were to come to a vote. The Texas Trial Lawyers Assoc. (TTLA) has already testified against that portion of the bill, and they were successful in getting the "loser pays" provision deleted from Castle Doctrine and it had huge co-sponsor support.

Chas.

1) I think the immunity clause for employers is essential. Without that, the business interests would call in every chit they had to defeat it.

2) I see that "loser pays" was deleted from the Castle Doctrine bill. But the final version looks like an IMPROVEMENT to me.

The original version stated that in the event of a lawsuit, it was an affirmative defense that the person using deadly force was legally justified in using that force under the penal code. And yes, in the event that the lawsuit failed, the person using deadly force could recover attorney's fees, among other things.

But in the amended version, the person using deadly force is declared IMMUNE from civil suit if their actions are justified under the penal code. This is much better than a mere affirmative defense. The way the final version reads, you CAN'T be sued if your actions were lawful.

Here's the link to what I believe to be the final version. I got it from the TX Legislature website.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00378F.doc

Am I missing something here? To me, the version that passed looks better than the original.