TexasCHLforum.com

2up1down wrote:Would you please explain more. I have a CHL and drive a company truck (tanker).
Thank you Sir. I wrote this after reading the bill any comments are appreciated.
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=44858" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apostate wrote:

JKTex wrote:As Kieth said, and in another way, no sign, even 30.06, will be valid for parking lots (as defined in the bill).

As I read the bill, it seems a 30.06 sign in a parking lot would not apply to employees, but would be 30.06 notice for contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, customers, etc. I would love to be mistaken about that, but that's how I read Senate Bill 321.

thr_wedge wrote:Please move if this belongs in another place. What is to stop an employer from posting 30.06 signs at the parking lot? Then CHLs would be prohibited by state law (which the SB 321 says is an exception to the new law) and since a CHL is required to have the firearm under SB 321 as part of the new law, you can't claim that you are carrying under the motorist protection act.

Jasonw560 wrote:From the Guide to Texas Legislation website:

After a bill has passed through committee deliberation and three readings in the opposite chamber, the bill is sent back to the originating chamber. A new copy of the bill is not prepared; rather, any amendments are simply attached to the bill. If no amendments were adopted by the second chamber, the bill is enrolled (prepared for signing). The enrolled bill then is signed by both presiding officers in the presence of their respective chambers and sent to the governor. Any bill making an appropriation must be sent to the comptroller of public accounts for certification before going to the governor.

When a bill that has been amended by the opposite chamber is returned to the originating chamber, the originating chamber must concur with all of the amendments made by the opposite chamber before the bill can be enrolled. If the originating chamber does not concur with some or all of the opposite chamber’s amendments, it may request the appointment of a conference committee to resolve the differences between the house and senate versions of the bill.

They could try and send this to conference committee and stall it there. I doubt that it would work.

hirundo82 wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:How does affect Penal Code 46.03(a)(1)? You know, the written authorization of a school part?

SB321 doesn't make any changes to the Penal Code. It's already legal for school employees to have firearms in their vehicles on school property--they can just be fired if it is discovered.

kragluver wrote:

School district employees will still be prohibited from keeping a gun in their vehicle while at work.

This would not apply to school district employees who also hold a CHL though would it?

I'm also interested in how the new parking lot bill would apply to employees who work on fedral property (or if it would...).