TexasCHLforum.com

Oilman:
I obviously agree, as you can see from my earlier post. HB896 was referred to the Law Enforcement Committee, but has not yet been set for hearing. (Hearings are just starting to be set.) This is a good committee for our issue, as there are a number of members who respect both the Second Amendment and the firearm protections in the Texas Constitution.

As I read the tea leaves, we probably have at least 5 A and A+ members and one D rated member (Burnam). I realize there are two "?’s" on the TSRA Voters Guide, but at least one of them (Jackson) should be good on our issue. The other (Veasey) claims to support 2A rights, but we'll see when the votes are in.

Even with a "good" committee and a large majority of pro-2A members in the House and Senate, this could still be a fight. We will hear the phrase "private property rights" until the bill is passed or defeated. As I noted in an earlier post, there is ample precedent for this relatively minor additional restriction on the private property rights of employers. I just hope we can get it done in this legislative session.

Regards,
Chas.

fiftycal wrote:This is a big problem and it pits the "property rights" conservatives against the gun owners . . .

That was a big part of the discussion within the TSRA Legislative Committee and with others. Most pro-gun people also have great respect for private property rights and rightfully so.

However, there has long been a precedent for greater regulation of commercial property. For example, commercial property is subject to fire codes, mandatory access for the handicapped, exit doors must be unlocked during business hours, stairs must have handrails, occupancy limits exist for many commercial locations, etc. Further, employers are subject to state and federal laws regarding the provision of a safe work place for employees, such as mandatory design criteria for vertical ladders at plants, emergency showers, and lighting requirements. Many cities prohibit smoking in commercial buildings, such as office buildings and restaurants. So owners of commercial property, including employers, do not enjoy the degree of unfettered use of their private property as do non-commercial owners such as homeowners.

There is ample legal precedent for this relatively minor additional restriction on the private property rights of employers in this commercial setting. But I fully agree, there will be a fight over this issue and TSRA understands this is an important issue for many CHL holders.

The bill also provides immunity to employers, so they will not be forced to shoulder any potential liability for the acts of a CHL employee.

Regards,
Chas.