Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

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

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1


2firfun50
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Little Elm Tx
Contact:

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#61

Post by 2firfun50 » Wed May 22, 2013 10:05 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Owens wrote:Charles, it may be helpful in 2015, but for now it does nothing more than irritate the begeebees out of a bunch of people that are fed up with the "good for me and not for thee" attitude. It don't feed the bulldog today!

Just playing a hunch here, but those that voted for that corona ammendment are probably the same ones that prevented 972.
Please consider another possibility. Those who blocked HB972 were blocking 508 until the Carona admendment was added. HB508 is a major bill folks; it's impact should not be underestimated. Losing it would be far more significant than not passing HB972 in terms of the number of people impacted by its protections.

Chas.
When I put my "adult" hat on and look at the Corona amendement logically, we as average CHL holders lost nothing. Yes, the elected officials granted themselves some big exceptions. I don't care for it either.

We need the good parts of HB508. To give a little for something that does absolutely no harm to the masses, to make a big gain, is a significant win!!!

It will be interesting to see how the House reacts to the Corona amendment. If it sails thru with no problem, would it make sense for a "Call to action" if there is a special session for HB3218? Since HB3218 died in committee, but we're about to see the whole house's response to an amendment which is basically "HB3218 for elected officals". :roll:

Just thinking out loud, but it might be worth a shot.


tico
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:40 pm

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#62

Post by tico » Wed May 22, 2013 10:17 am

You know, I've been following this for more than a few years, and letter-writing and calling. I'm going back to school to get a degree and change industries a bit, and I was sure that if ever there was a chance for campus carry it would be this time, and that I could actually legally protect myself on campus.

Now forgive the negativity, but I can't imagine what on earth would be fundamentally any better for the passage of campus carry in the subsequent sessions (even a glass half full carry like HB972) than the current session, especially when considering the last 6 years. Anyone here want to make a bet that it'll still be illegal for me to carry in school by the time I graduate in 2017? I'd be happy lose that bet and pay out. I'll even stack the odds 3 to 1 in your favor. Who's game?

I'll keep calling and letter-writing, but it's too easy for our senators and reps to say "I support hunters" and avoid the more difficult issues of self-defense in an urban environment while still getting the TSRA's support because they're republican.
-T

User avatar

Owens
Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:51 am
Location: Levelland

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#63

Post by Owens » Wed May 22, 2013 10:33 am

I really hope that somehow today, someone(s) will use the vote for the 508 carona ammendment as pressure for support of 972 today.
Life Member NRA, TSRA


Richard_B
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:16 pm

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#64

Post by Richard_B » Wed May 22, 2013 10:56 am

wrinkles wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Listening to Sen. Wendy Davis makes me ill. That fact that she was elected to the Senate is puzzling beyond belief.

Chas.
Can you clarify what this does.
A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the
handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9.
It strikes out: "fails to conceal the handgun"
after which is this: displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9

How is "a manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9" defined?

For us non layers please.
This is interesting. The language is very similar to the language in the version of SB 299 (as filed) which was deleted in the version which was passed.

"(a)A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder ’s person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally [fails to conceal the handgun] displays the
handgun in plain view of another person in a public place in a
manner calculated to cause alarm and not pursuant to a justified use
of force or threat of force as described in Chapter 9."

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Compare that to the language of the version which passed.

"(a)A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder ’s person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally displays [fails to conceal] the handgun in plain
view of another person in a public place."

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might want to also look at the following section.

"(h)It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that
the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed
the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been
justified in the use of force or deadly force under Chapter 9."

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In plain English, "It is a defense...." means bring it up at your trial. It would have been better if the law were "It is not an offense....", but that is the way it is. The section on intentional display simply say "it is an offense if...." which, presumably also means that you would get to bring this up at your trial if some prosecutor pushes it. I guess this leaves something to be dealt with in the next legislative session in two years.

Plainly, "calculated to cause alarm" means more than merely having the firearm in plain view. We are talking about the "person of ordinary sensibility", not someone who has an anxiety attack at the prospect of even seeing a firearm. Your own experience probably suggests circumstances which would cause alarm if someone were handing a firearm. It is potentially helpful language.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17460
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#65

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed May 22, 2013 11:16 am

tico wrote:I'll keep calling and letter-writing, but it's too easy for our senators and reps to say "I support hunters" and avoid the more difficult issues of self-defense in an urban environment while still getting the TSRA's support because they're republican.
-T
Republicans aren't trying to use the "I support hunters" slogan; that's the Democrats' tactic. Republicans have passed numerous pro self-defense bills in numerous sessions, including this session. Castle Doctrine (SB378 - 2007); Motorist Protection Act (HB1815 - 2007); Employer Parking Lot bill (SB321 - 2011) are just three of the better known bills that directly address self-defense. There are more that don't have the curb appeal of these high profile bills and/or impact self-defense indirectly.

TSRA rates, supports or opposes Senators and Representatives based upon their records when they have one, and upon their questionnaires when they have no record. Merely being a Republican doesn't entitle you to anything.

Chas.
Image


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#66

Post by K.Mooneyham » Wed May 22, 2013 11:33 am

Is there any word on SB 1907? I understand that full campus carry seems like its becoming a real long shot, but its frustrating to be worried that having my pistol in my vehicle could end up getting me kicked out of school...so I don't have it with me. And the main reason I don't is the police academy, with dog-handlers, shares the parking lot at my school. I don't know what those dogs can smell, but they take them by peoples' vehicles on what seems to be a regular but random basis. I'm getting close to the end of my college career and I just can't afford to get kicked out with the end in sight.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17460
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#67

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed May 22, 2013 11:36 am

Richard_B wrote:In plain English, "It is a defense...." means bring it up at your trial. It would have been better if the law were "It is not an offense....", but that is the way it is. The section on intentional display simply say "it is an offense if...." which, presumably also means that you would get to bring this up at your trial if some prosecutor pushes it. I guess this leaves something to be dealt with in the next legislative session in two years.
Yes, it is a defense to prosecution, but so is being a LEO, a CHL holder and numerous other defenses. Technically, every COP and every CHL can be arrested every day and have to prove in court that they are a COP or CHL. The only alternatives to "defenses" are "exceptions" but they are not applicable when there is a fact determination to be made by a judge or jury. When facing a charge of "intentional display" under §46.035(a), the question as to whether you would have been justified in using force or deadly force (including threats under TPC §9.04) is a question of fact. It's not something that can be proven to the LEO on the street by showing your CHL, LEO ID, or driver's license.

As a practical matter, most LEOs aren't going to make the arrest for violating §46.035(a) if the facts show you could have used force or deadly force. If he/she did and the prosecutor disagreed, the charges would be dropped. The likelihood of actually having to prove this defense in court is minimal, unless there truly is no basis for the use of force.
Richard_B wrote:Plainly, "calculated to cause alarm" means more than merely having the firearm in plain view. We are talking about the "person of ordinary sensibility", not someone who has an anxiety attack at the prospect of even seeing a firearm. Your own experience probably suggests circumstances which would cause alarm if someone were handing a firearm. It is potentially helpful language.
As noted in other posts, the "calculated to cause alarm" language was stripped from the bill in committee. I've explained why so I won't go into that again.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17460
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#68

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed May 22, 2013 12:33 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote:Is there any word on SB 1907? I understand that full campus carry seems like its becoming a real long shot, but its frustrating to be worried that having my pistol in my vehicle could end up getting me kicked out of school...so I don't have it with me. And the main reason I don't is the police academy, with dog-handlers, shares the parking lot at my school. I don't know what those dogs can smell, but they take them by peoples' vehicles on what seems to be a regular but random basis. I'm getting close to the end of my college career and I just can't afford to get kicked out with the end in sight.
I can't say anything now, but SB1907 is fine.

Chas.
Image


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1971
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#69

Post by K.Mooneyham » Wed May 22, 2013 8:25 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:Is there any word on SB 1907? I understand that full campus carry seems like its becoming a real long shot, but its frustrating to be worried that having my pistol in my vehicle could end up getting me kicked out of school...so I don't have it with me. And the main reason I don't is the police academy, with dog-handlers, shares the parking lot at my school. I don't know what those dogs can smell, but they take them by peoples' vehicles on what seems to be a regular but random basis. I'm getting close to the end of my college career and I just can't afford to get kicked out with the end in sight.
I can't say anything now, but SB1907 is fine.

Chas.
That's okay, thank you, I do appreciate it.

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: SW Fort Worth

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#70

Post by AJSully421 » Wed May 22, 2013 8:53 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Listening to Sen. Wendy Davis makes me ill. That fact that she was elected to the Senate is puzzling beyond belief.

Chas.
It pains me that she serves part of the Fort Worth area. Luckily I am not in her district.
I am... south Fort Worth, straight ticket democrat votes for obama... that's how she got elected. Luckily, she drew the short straw, so she is up for re-election in a non-presidential year. She will fail this time.
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964

30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.

NRA, LTC, School Safety, Armed Security, & Body Guard Instructor


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Gun bills on the Senate intent calendar today

#71

Post by Bladed » Wed May 22, 2013 10:17 pm

Bladed wrote:
artx wrote:
baldeagle wrote:Looks like campus carry (HB 972) will die again this session. You young pups will have to take up the torch. I give up.

Looks like they're doing cleanup now before adjourning for the night.
Isn't tomorrow still a possibility (or am I reading the calendar wrong here)http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/De ... lendar.pdf
To pass tomorrow, HB 972 would need 25 votes instead of 21. If Birdwell can't secure 21 votes today, he's not likely to secure 25 tomorrow.

For all intents and purposes, HB 972 is dead. It's time to call Governor Perry and ask for campus carry to be added to his special session call.
The Senate just started a new "day" at 10 PM (a bill must be read on three separate days unless the author/sponsor can secure a 4/5 vote to suspend the constitutional "three-day" rule). I guess that's kind of like rolling back the clock at midnight--they do whatever it takes to get the bills passed.

Unfortunately, this didn't help HB 972.

Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”