TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

You are missing my point. The legislature had to address the parking lot dilemma via separate legislation. I was a comparing the two different circumstances.

I'm not saying they will address the employee carry issue in colleges, I just acknowledged what he is pointing out. Just because it will be legal does not mean it will be allowed.

Again, the provision I cited has nothing to do with making campus carry legal and everything to do with making sure campus carry is allowed.

Bladed wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

You are missing my point. The legislature had to address the parking lot dilemma via separate legislation. I was a comparing the two different circumstances.

I'm not saying they will address the employee carry issue in colleges, I just acknowledged what he is pointing out. Just because it will be legal does not mean it will be allowed.

Again, the provision I cited has nothing to do with making campus carry legal and everything to do with making sure campus carry is allowed.

Again, I'M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS. Just acknowledging what the other poster is saying.

Whether he or you are right is not what I'm concerned with. I have no dog in the fight as I do not work for a university. I was only clarifying what I thought he was saying.

Since you are the new legislative expert here, did the legislators anticipate that employers would prohibit employees from keeping their carry weapons in their cars in the parking lot when they passed the concealed carry law in 1995 making it legal for people to conceal carry? Did they contemplate how the employee would restrict such activity via employee rules and employment contracts?

This essentially rendered employees unable to conceal carry before or after work unless they went home beforehand to get their guns.

mojo84 wrote:

Bladed wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

mojo84 wrote:
If that is correct, you may be on to something. Just because the legislature makes it legal doesn't mean it couldn't be prevented by rule in the employee handbook. Similar to the prohibition of guns in emplohee's cars while parked in the parking lot.

There is already protection in place for guns in employee parking lots. It does not extend to inside the building.

I'll defer to the attorneys in here, but I can't imagine that teachers and other staff would be the only protected class of employees in the state that would be shielded from an employer preventing CC in an employee handbook. How is that possible?

You are missing my point. The legislature had to address the parking lot dilemma via separate legislation. I was a comparing the two different circumstances.

I'm not saying they will address the employee carry issue in colleges, I just acknowledged what he is pointing out. Just because it will be legal does not mean it will be allowed.

Again, the provision I cited has nothing to do with making campus carry legal and everything to do with making sure campus carry is allowed.

Again, I'M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS. Just acknowledging what the other poster is saying.

Whether he or you are right is not what I'm concerned with. I have no dog in the fight as I do not work for a university. I was only clarifying what I thought he was saying.

Since you are the new legislative expert here, did the legislators anticipate that employers would prohibit employees from keeping their carry weapons in their cars in the parking lot when they passed the concealed carry law in 1995 making it legal for people to conceal carry? Did they contemplate how the employee would restrict such activity via employee rules and employment contracts?

This essentially rendered employees unable to conceal carry before or after work unless they went home beforehand to get their guns.

I wasn't around in '95, but as I understand it, the legislature was primarily concerned with getting something passed. Shall-issue laws were still considered some what new/unproven, and the legislature kept the initial law fairly broad. Then, as the existing law established a safe track record for itself and as lawmakers started identifying problems with enforcement (e.g., employers restricting guns in parked cars, businesses posting inconspicuous no-guns signs), they tweaked the law to address those issues.

Since campus carry legislation was first introduced in 2009, the push has always been about ensuring that universities and colleges can't prohibit license holders--especially students, faculty, and staff--from carrying on campus. That provision was stripped from the 2013 House bill, by a committee substitute from an anti-campus-carry committee chair, but it has always been a core part of the mission of the legislators carrying these bills and the organizations pushing these bills.

The clause prohibiting universities and colleges from creating "any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution" is not vague or ambiguous. It doesn't say, "any law" or "any rule other than a provision of the employee handbook." There is no way to interpret that clause as allowing universities to include a concealed-carry prohibition as a condition for employment.

Bill could make open carry easier for out-of-staters

Rodríguez's attempts to amend the Senate bill, sponsored by Republican Craig Estes of Wichita Falls, failed. He wanted to ensure anyone who had lost a Texas concealed handgun license could not continue to carry here – openly or otherwise – with a permit from another state. Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, said he would work to ensure a similar amendment is proposed when the bill come up for debate on the House floor, which should be within the next few weeks.

HB910 live streaming now.

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=1337" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Point of order was just called.

At 11:18 this morning, HB 910 is being called for debate and/or vote. When Strauss called the bill, a Representative called a point of order citing 4 rules. This is happening right now, and there's a pause in the action. Debate has not started yet.

Why was the Point of Order called, I missed it.

steveincowtown wrote:Why was the Point of Order called, I missed it.

Didn't say, just quoted about 4 rule numbers.

House is at ease for 5 mins.

HB 910 just came up, but they have suspended things for five minutes. Some jerk brought up a bunch of points of order.

I am having a cynical moment right now. Trying to get over it.

Mr. Martinez raised a point of order on three rule violations.. not sure what the rules are

There are flaws in the handling of specimen ballots in electronic elections in Texas. I can prove he wasn't lawfully elected. I think I'll bring that up to his office, and to Phillips'.

Locksmith wrote:Mr. Martinez raised a point of order on three rule violations.. not sure what the rules are

Stall tactic. Get on with it already.

On the other hand we have been waiting 100+ years, what is another 5 minutes.

I swear I hear faint yelling.

The rule violation probably has to do with passing gun freedom on Joe Strauss' watch. Yes, grumpy I am, at the moment.

Sure is a lonnnngggggg 5 minutes!

steveincowtown wrote:

Locksmith wrote:Mr. Martinez raised a point of order on three rule violations.. not sure what the rules are

On the other hand we have been waiting 100+ years, what is another 5 minutes.

That was the same comment I had when DPS asked for Jan implementation instead of September.

Hoping they keep any bad amendments shut down today.