looks like NRA got it right

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

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#16

Post by Cedar Park Dad » Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:49 am

jerry_r60 wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:So can somone summarzie what was actually passed and signed into law again in both the main and this special session? I wouldn't trust any bill until its actually signed.
Edited because I type like a drunken nearsighted monkey (which is pretty accurate actually)
There were a couple that were either signed or "signed by default", they passed the 10 day period without signature or veto so they become law. Several of these that say "Sent to the Governor" I think reach their default date this weekend. They had 20 days as I recall because they occured in the last week of the session or something like that.

Here is a list of the ones I was tracking that made it:

HB 48 Last Action: 05/25/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the procedure under which a person may renew a license to carry a concealed handgun.

HB 333 Last Action: 05/20/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to requiring notice of a hotel's firearms policy and other guest policies; providing a criminal penalty.

HB 1862 Last Action: 05/27/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with respect to a switchblade knife.

HB 3142 Last Action: 05/27/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to handguns used to demonstrate proficiency in handgun use for purposes of obtaining a concealed handgun license.

SB 299 Last Action: 05/18/2013 E Effective on 9/1/13
Caption: Relating to the intentional display of a handgun by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

SB 864 Last Action: 05/24/2013 E Effective on 9/1/13
Caption: Relating to a handgun proficiency course that is taken to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license.

SB 1907 Last Action: 05/28/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the transportation and storage of firearms and ammunition by concealed handgun license holders in private vehicles on the campuses of certain institutions of higher education.
Thanks!


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#17

Post by chasfm11 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:05 am

OldGrumpy wrote:
Zoo wrote:
suthdj wrote:Maybe it is time for some new representation down in Austin.
i think it's time for a new Governor, as long as it's not because the current one got a national office.
:iagree: :patriot: :txflag:
I believe the real truth about the failure of the 2013 Texas Legislative session to be different. The 2011 Session failed and the 2015 Session will fail again because of the Speaker of the House. He holds power through a coalition of Rino Republicans and Democrats. He gives a voice to the latter that they otherwise would not have.

The best thing that anyone who wants to improve gun legislation in Texas can do is to go to San Antonio and make sure that he doesn't get re-elected. You probably have a better chance of hitting a bulleye on 1 foot target at 2,000 yards with a 9mm handgun. Many of us lament the Austin Liberals. The real damage to the Conservative agenda comes from San Antonio.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero


jerry_r60
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#18

Post by jerry_r60 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:13 am

G26ster wrote:
Bladed wrote:
G26ster wrote:I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?
This was discussed in another thread. The most recent bill passed takes precedence in any area of conflict; however, there is no major area of conflict between these two bills. SB 864 primarily deals with an initial CHL course, and HB 48 primarily deals with renewals.
The bills' languages do conflict. SB 864 has a training requirement for renewals, while HB 48 does not. The only thing I've read is that the "latest" one passed takes precedence, but I've only read that on another forum, and was looking for someone here, like Mr. Cotton, to confirm that.
I agree with what others have said regarding the difference between these bills. I will only add that I did ask a question about the reconciliation of two bills that pass with conflicting language. For example, one passing that says new chl and renewals get reduced course hours and the other bill eliminating the need for a renewal course all together. Chalres did respond to that thread, see below.

Here was my question and the answer from Charles in another thread:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
jerry_r60 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB48 that removes the necessity of taking a class to renew a Texas CHL passed today. It now goes to the Governor.

Chas.
I understood HB48 as you have described however I was confused on how to apply it in context of SB 864 also passing, which lowered requirments of the class but still had them (as I understand it). Is it as simple as SB 864 definging a course (for initial application and renewal) and then HB 48 saying you don't need to take that course? Does SB 864 get applied and then HB 48 comes behind it and nullifys it for renewals?
You are correct. When two bills pass in the same session that impact the same area of the law, they must be reconciled. So SB864 creates a single class for both new and renewal students that is 4 to 6 hours long, but HB48 removes the need to take that class to renew a CHL. It's when two bills are conflicting that you must look to the times each passed. There is no irreconcilable conflict between SB864 and HB48, but if there were, then we would have the same result. HB48 passed after SB864, so the provisions of HB48 would control to the extent they were in conflict with anything in SB864. (Sorry for the lawyer-like answer. :lol: )

Chas.


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#19

Post by Bladed » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:07 pm

IlliniBill wrote:
jerry_r60 wrote: HB 1862 Last Action: 05/27/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with respect to a switchblade knife.
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does this bill do? Based on my reading, it looks like it decriminalizes owning a switchblade. Is this correct?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB1862" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bear and mind that municipalities will still have the right to ban switchblades. Some already do. Check local ordinances before purchasing or carrying a switchblade.

User avatar

Jumping Frog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5485
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Klein, TX (Houston NW suburb)

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#20

Post by Jumping Frog » Sat Jun 15, 2013 11:41 am

Looks like Bill SB 17 was vetoed by the Governor yesterday.
-Just call me Bob . . . Texas Firearms Coalition, NRA Life member, TSRA Life member, and OFCC Patron member

This froggie ain't boiling! Shall not be infringed! Μολών Λαβέ
More Obamination. Idiots. Can't we find an electable (R) for 2016?

User avatar

Beiruty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8742
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Allen, Texas

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#21

Post by Beiruty » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:17 pm

Jumping Frog wrote:Looks like Bill SB 17 was vetoed by the Governor yesterday.
Again, what is SB 17?
Beiruty,
United we stand, dispersed we falter
2014: NRA Endowment lifetime member

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#22

Post by G26ster » Sat Jun 15, 2013 12:18 pm

Beiruty wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote:Looks like Bill SB 17 was vetoed by the Governor yesterday.
Again, what is SB 17?
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/18678/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar

Pacifist
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 11:34 pm
Location: Houston (or thereabouts)

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#23

Post by Pacifist » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:15 pm

HB48 was signed yesterday:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=HB48" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar

Skiprr
Moderator
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6458
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Outskirts of Houston

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#24

Post by Skiprr » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:59 pm

Beiruty wrote:
Jumping Frog wrote:Looks like Bill SB 17 was vetoed by the Governor yesterday.
Again, what is SB 17?
Somewhat lengthy to read and decipher: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00017F.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

While the general concept looked good at first glance, the bill was, unfortunately, full of holes and undefined items. I have no doubt that if it had been clearer--and more pragmatically written--Perry would have signed it. It isn't the arming of teachers that he had a problem with; after all, he signed HB 1009 and SB 1857 yesterday. IMHO, the overriding issues were funding, definition of trainee/licensee responsibilities, and definition of the training itself.

In essence, the bill said that DPS will establish and maintain a training program--to be conducted at the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, San Marcos--a school safety training program for employees, who must already hold a CHL, of a school district or open-enrollement charter schools. Each school year, DPS would provide the training at no charge for every school campus that does not have full-time security personnel or commissioned LEOs, thus leaving out most of the major metropolitan school districts. Schools could opt to pay for--at their and subsequently taxpayer expense--training of additional school employees beyond the two per school year.

The bill intended money for the training come from a "school safety training fund" to be created as a special fund in the state treasury, which coffers were intended to be filled by gifts, grants, and donations. DPS would have been allowed to spend up to, but no more than, $1 million of state funds in any fiscal biennium...meaning two-year periods coinciding with the legislative sessions. Therefore, if "gifts, grants, and donations" couldn't bear the lion's share of the costs, and the $1 million extra didn't cut it, the training would have to cease until new "gifts, grants, and donations" could be raised, or until the next state fiscal biennium rolled around and another $1 million became available.

The biggest problem I see with the proposal is that there is no measure of guaranteed sustainability. Introducing a large-scale training program like this requires significant planning, preparation, implementation, and staffing. The estimated annual cost of operating the program is $10 million. The way the bill reads, if at any time the "gifts, grants, and donations" and the maximum $1 million (per two-year period) from regular state funding isn't present, the whole thing has to be shut down. As a program manager, this would be a logistical nightmare. If you've had to hire and train additional instructors and staff to handle thousands of new students each year at TSU San Marcos, what do you do with them if the money runs out? Theoretically, you might operate for six months, then be shut down for a year-and-a-half. This not to mention the logistical complexity for the school districts who would no doubt be planning up to a year in advance to send select personnel for the training...in part because they would also need to be budgeting taxpayer dollars for the trainees' travel, room, and board.

In essence--and in school district terminology--the bill was kind of like committing to build a new football stadium before ever having a school bond referendum.

Secondly, there was significant word-count in the bill devoted to limitation of liabilities, indemnifying everyone from the whole Texas State University System to any officer of the DPS. But it never even attempted to define the role of the school employee who had completed the training course, or even give that role a name or specific designation. They would simply be CHL holders who have the right to carry on school premises...which Texas law already allows without extra, state-funded training, dependent upon the policies of the school or school district.

Governor Perry did sign HB 1009 yesterday, which allows school boards and charter schools to appoint employees as school marshals and pay for them to receive training from the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. The employee will be permitted to have a handgun on campus, the cost of training is the school district's responsibility and, importantly, it defines the role and scope of the school marshal: "a school marshal may make arrests and exercise all authority given peace officers under this code, subject to written regulations adopted by the board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of an open-enrollment charter school under Section 37.0811, Education Code, and only act as necessary to prevent or abate the commission of an offense that threatens serious bodily injury or death of students, faculty, or visitors on school premises."

Lastly, SB 17 did not define the type of training, only that DPS "...shall, with technical assistance based on the best practices developed for law enforcement officers by the training center, establish and maintain a training program in school safety and the protection of students." In other words, no curriculum currently exists, would have to be developed, and there is no requirement for standards, testing, or audit. Under HB 1009, on the other hand, school employees would go through a minimum of 80 hours of TCLOSE training, be administered a psychological examination, have license expiration and renewal defined, and will be a designated a Law Enforcement Officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, albeit a LEO with limited jurisdiction and one that receives no state benefits normally provided to a peace officer.
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member


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

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#25

Post by Richard_B » Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:06 am

srothstein wrote:I have always hated the word decriminalize. So many people use decriminalize to mean make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony. My preferred wording is that this bill legalizes as it makes it more clear.

And that is what this bill will do. It will be legal to own and carry a switchblade knife when this law is signed and takes effect (Sep 1.).
One thing should be remembered. Switchblades are still subject to the general provisions of illegal knives. That means blade length and type restrictions still apply.

Perhaps next time Rep. Dutton can be persuaded to introduce a bill removing knife restrictions from the P.C. As several other states have done.


gringo pistolero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:49 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#26

Post by gringo pistolero » Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:15 pm

I hope they get it right when they grade Straus, Perry, etc. and hand out Cs and Ds instead of gold stars.

"The dog ate my campus carry bill." :roll:
I sincerely apologize to anybody I offended by suggesting the Second Amendment also applies to The People who don't work for the government.

Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”