TexasCHLforum.com

The old statutes on the legislature's website don't go back before 2004, but 46.035(i) is a lot older than 2007. IIRC it was added very soon after CHL came into effect, maybe 1997.

speedsix wrote:Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...we don't turn stupid upon entering our child's school...city hall, or anywhere else...except, as we all know, when we enter a Federal facility...then we're just a" subject"...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Governor Perry saying that is why I voted for him in November, despite the fact that as a libertarian I disagree with him on many other isses.

cbr600 wrote:

srothstein wrote:I was trying to think of why a non-commissioned employee might need to be armed.

If they do, why can't they get a CHL like the rest of us?

Are they criminals and therefore not eligible?

Also, there's no legitimate reason they need to carry anywhere that we don't need to carry.

If they have a need to be armed, arming non-commissioned employees as part of their job is bound to be a liability nightmare for the state.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You are correct and it's part of an article I'm going to write on the carving out of a portion of the CHL population. Hopefully, it'll get some traction in Austin, but I don't think for a moment we'll be able to get all CHLs exempt from TPC §§46.02 and 46.03, although that's been my quest since the 2001 session.

Chas.

I agree that it is probably not feasible to exempt CHLs from §46.03 at this time (aren't we already exempt from §46.02 [ETA: at least as it pertains to handguns]?), although it would be nice to start chipping away at it with the campus carry bill.

I think it may be feasible to eliminate §46.035(b), and moving correctional institutions to §46.03, but you are obviously in a better position to judge that than I am.

hirundo82 wrote:There was a similar bill to HB 1463 filed in the Senate today, SB 905.

The Senate version of the bill also exempts "a noncommissioned employee of the Department of Public Safety, designated by the director of the department" from PC §46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c).

I hope this isn't a step toward exempting all state employees from the CHL restrictions--I could see the DPS director exempting all DPS employees, then next session the legislature comes back and exempts all state employees.

OK, so thinking about it more I doubt that is what would happen. I'll bet there is a class of noncommissioned DPS employees whose job puts them at a higher danger (although I don't know who that would be; first thought would be Child PRotective Services but they aren't DPS), and DPS wants them to be able to protect themselves.

Even if I can think of a rationale, I still don't like the trend of carving out special exemptions for elected officials and government employees.

There was a similar bill to HB 1463 filed in the Senate today, SB 905.

The Senate version of the bill also exempts "a noncommissioned employee of the Department of Public Safety, designated by the director of the department" from PC §46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c).

I hope this isn't a step toward exempting all state employees from the CHL restrictions--I could see the DPS director exempting all DPS employees, then next session the legislature comes back and exempts all state employees.

C-dub wrote:I don't think any politician is any more important than I am, but I do recognize that they are a higher priority target than I am.

If they're so concerned about their own safety they can hire a off-duty LEOs on their own dime to provide protection.

Allowing themselves to carry places the rest of us can't, without requiring any more training, sends the message that those places aren't off limits because it would be dangerous to have CHLs carry there, but rather that we don't deserve to be able to protect ourselves in those places.

CWOOD wrote:Just a small correction.
The offending bill regarding the carrying of handguns by school board members and administrators at school board meetings is actually HB698. Your link was to the correct bill but the text of the post refers to HB598.

Thanks for the heads-up; I fixed the bill number in my post.

Since this thread seems to be gaining traction, I'll post this here instead of making a new thread.

There was another of these bills giving government officials special carry privileges filed today, HB 1530. This one exempts members of the commisioners court from the §46.035(c) prohibition on carrying at meeting of government entities. Side note: I'm not familiar with local Texas governmental structure having not grown up here--commissioners court wouldn't qualify as "the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" per §46.03?

This makes 3 bills exempting government officials from different sections of the Texas carry laws (the third being HB 698, exempting school board members and school administrators attending school board meetings). I really don't like this trend, and I'm wondering why it is happening this year--I've been following CHL bills for the last couple of legislative sessions and don't remember these kind of bills being filed before, and a quick glance over the CHL bills for the 79th and 80th legislative sessions doesn't reveal any.

TrueFlog wrote:That said, I'm split on this bill. I agree that this bill will create a special "privileged" class that gives members of the government more rights than "We the People". Their lives aren't any more important than ours, nor do they face a danger any more imminent or grave. What's more, it smells like a knee-jerk reaction to the Arizona killings, and I oppose that just on principle.

What I'm afraid of happening is something like what happens in my home state of Virginia, where every legislative session there are a few bills introduced to give some class of government employees special carry rights--usually exempting them from obtaining a permit (in a shall-issue state). I think it was members of Coast Guard boarding parties last session, and correctional officers this session. I don't want to see that happen here.

CWOOD wrote:Her comments were that he had been approached as a result of the Arizona shootings and that some elected officials felt unsafe in certain locations. I again mentioned that my young daughters occasionally feel uncomfortable when they are required to disarm. NOT FAIR---NO EXCUSE

I figured that was what was inspiring this but that is no excuse. There is a similar measure at the federal level, allowing representatives to carry in DC, but I expect more of our Texas representatives than I expect of the federal ones.

speedsix wrote:...it's just one more way to say they're more important than we are...I understand that they're in danger...and should be armed...most of 'em, anyways...but no more so than we are living daily in the world they created for us...legally speaking...I prefer the Guvnah's policy...if we can go there...we can carry there...now THAT'S the way it oughta read!!!

I agree. They all have the right to defend themselves, but their right to do so is no greater that the right the rest of us have to do the same.

Representative Kleinschmidt filed HB 1463 yesterday. This bill if passed would exempt statewide elected officials and members with a CHL from Penal Code §46.035 sections (b)(1) (51% premises), (b)(2) (sporting events), (b)(4) (hospitals), (b)(5) (amusement parks), (b)(6) (churches), and (c) (goverment meetings). It would also exempt them from the time they left office until the time they had to renew their CHL.

This bill makes me incredibly angry, and it seems like really bad timing to introduce a bill like this this legislative session. I don't like giving special favors to certain groups, and especially with the discontent with goverment that manifested itself in the November elections it would appear to me to be a bad move politically for elected officals to try to exempt themselves from the carry laws the rest of us must follow.