TexasCHLforum.com

JKTex wrote:I want to through this out there referring to the hearing yesterday.

Springer was talking about the bill(s) and for one example, used Hospitals in his district and how employees are fearful because they aren't allowed to carry. I was confused as to why he was using that as an example, considering a hospital is not prohibited without being posted in accordance with 30.06 and being an employee, their employment policy would be the issue.

Am I missing something or was he shooting at the wrong target?

Yes, you're missing something. HB 3218 removes the ability for a hospital to deny carry through 30.06, as it does for all the other prohibitions that were relegated to 30.06 in 46.035(i).

HB3218:

H Left pending in committee 04/18/2013
H Testimony taken/registration(s) recorded in committee 04/18/2013
H Considered in public hearing 04/18/2013
H Scheduled for public hearing on . . . 04/18/2013
H Referred to Homeland Security & Public Safety 03/19/2013 826
H Read first time 03/19/2013 826
H Filed 03/07/2013

Is it dead?

Mike1951 wrote:HB3218:

H Left pending in committee 04/18/2013
H Testimony taken/registration(s) recorded in committee 04/18/2013
H Considered in public hearing 04/18/2013
H Scheduled for public hearing on . . . 04/18/2013
H Referred to Homeland Security & Public Safety 03/19/2013 826
H Read first time 03/19/2013 826
H Filed 03/07/2013

Is it dead?

No. If they don't vote it out of committee next week, however, it will be on life support.

I remember Charles saying a week was usually the time frame for getting voted out.

Was really fishing for opinions on how it was received at the hearing.

Mike1951 wrote:I remember Charles saying a week was usually the time frame for getting voted out.

Was really fishing for opinions on how it was received at the hearing.

Who knows. The committee doesn't give an opinion, they just listen....or don't listen. Hopefully listened.

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:I want to through this out there referring to the hearing yesterday.

Springer was talking about the bill(s) and for one example, used Hospitals in his district and how employees are fearful because they aren't allowed to carry. I was confused as to why he was using that as an example, considering a hospital is not prohibited without being posted in accordance with 30.06 and being an employee, their employment policy would be the issue.

Am I missing something or was he shooting at the wrong target?

Yes, you're missing something. HB 3218 removes the ability for a hospital to deny carry through 30.06, as it does for all the other prohibitions that were relegated to 30.06 in 46.035(i).

How do you figure that? If HB 3218 passes, a hospital would be no different than a movie theater, shoe store, or Wal-Mart. They can still post a 30.06 if they want. There's nothing in the bill that says a hospital can't...

TrueFlog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:I want to through this out there referring to the hearing yesterday.

Springer was talking about the bill(s) and for one example, used Hospitals in his district and how employees are fearful because they aren't allowed to carry. I was confused as to why he was using that as an example, considering a hospital is not prohibited without being posted in accordance with 30.06 and being an employee, their employment policy would be the issue.

Am I missing something or was he shooting at the wrong target?

Yes, you're missing something. HB 3218 removes the ability for a hospital to deny carry through 30.06, as it does for all the other prohibitions that were relegated to 30.06 in 46.035(i).

How do you figure that? If HB 3218 passes, a hospital would be no different than a movie theater, shoe store, or Wal-Mart. They can still post a 30.06 if they want. There's nothing in the bill that says a hospital can't...

It's a complex bill. After re-reading it again, I think you are correct. What the bill does is remove both the prohibition against carrying in a hospital and 46.035(i) which requires 30.06 for the prohibition to apply. So, the "normal" 30.06 rules would apply. What it would do is clear up the confusion that many have about carrying in those places.

baldeagle wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:I want to through this out there referring to the hearing yesterday.

Springer was talking about the bill(s) and for one example, used Hospitals in his district and how employees are fearful because they aren't allowed to carry. I was confused as to why he was using that as an example, considering a hospital is not prohibited without being posted in accordance with 30.06 and being an employee, their employment policy would be the issue.

Am I missing something or was he shooting at the wrong target?

Yes, you're missing something. HB 3218 removes the ability for a hospital to deny carry through 30.06, as it does for all the other prohibitions that were relegated to 30.06 in 46.035(i).

How do you figure that? If HB 3218 passes, a hospital would be no different than a movie theater, shoe store, or Wal-Mart. They can still post a 30.06 if they want. There's nothing in the bill that says a hospital can't...

It's a complex bill. After re-reading it again, I think you are correct. What the bill does is remove both the prohibition against carrying in a hospital and 46.035(i) which requires 30.06 for the prohibition to apply. So, the "normal" 30.06 rules would apply. What it would do is clear up the confusion that many have about carrying in those places.

Correct, I'd call it some clean up plus removal of the other prohibited places, like sporting events. 51% for example, I think is a clean up since prohibition there comes from 411-something or other...I think?

If we're on the right track, my original question stands in regards to what he was saying. Not saying it is the case but I'm curious how often a good bill is written, and the sponsor(s) don't fully understand it. If that indeed does happen, it seems that is a problem from the onset. Just wondering out loud though. I may still be missing something.

JKTex wrote:If we're on the right track, my original question stands in regards to what he was saying. Not saying it is the case but I'm curious how often a good bill is written, and the sponsor(s) don't fully understand it. If that indeed does happen, it seems that is a problem from the onset. Just wondering out loud though. I may still be missing something.

Charles has much more experience with this than I, but I was intimately involved in a bill a few years back. I was shocked to discover that the bill was written by law students from Austin (they often serve on the staff of legislators) and the author of the bill had never even read it. Completely altered my view of the legislative process.

I have since learned that bills are often written by lobbyists' lawyers and handed to a friendly legislator to promote. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If you will recall, Charles has stated that he wrote the CHL laws (by which I take it to mean that he drafted the legislation). But if the true authors of the bill misrepresent the contents of the bill or "forget" to mention a certain clause or phrase that benefits their clients, the legislator may be promoting something entirely different from what they thought they were promoting.

Sharp legislators can spot things like that and amend bills, but on some things only a lawyer can grasp the significance of a particular wording or phrase. That's why every legislator should have a legal staff to read through every bill and warn them about the issues they care about. And why we citizens must do our best to learn and understand the law.

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:If we're on the right track, my original question stands in regards to what he was saying. Not saying it is the case but I'm curious how often a good bill is written, and the sponsor(s) don't fully understand it. If that indeed does happen, it seems that is a problem from the onset. Just wondering out loud though. I may still be missing something.

Charles has much more experience with this than I, but I was intimately involved in a bill a few years back. I was shocked to discover that the bill was written by law students from Austin (they often serve on the staff of legislators) and the author of the bill had never even read it. Completely altered my view of the legislative process.

I have since learned that bills are often written by lobbyists' lawyers and handed to a friendly legislator to promote. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If you will recall, Charles has stated that he wrote the CHL laws (by which I take it to mean that he drafted the legislation). But if the true authors of the bill misrepresent the contents of the bill or "forget" to mention a certain clause or phrase that benefits their clients, the legislator may be promoting something entirely different from what they thought they were promoting.

Sharp legislators can spot things like that and amend bills, but on some things only a lawyer can grasp the significance of a particular wording or phrase. That's why every legislator should have a legal staff to read through every bill and warn them about the issues they care about. And why we citizens must do our best to learn and understand the law.

Many years ago I worked as a telephone man in the NY State Legislature, and it was even worse there. If you were a citizen and wanted to submit a bill, you wrote it up, following a format that was supplied, and then shopped it to legislators to find someone who would carry it, which, if you were at all savvy, you would know which ones to give it to. Legislative insiders, political hacks, lobbyists, and so on, could "fast track" bills through specific legislators. Legislators wanting to submit a bill would either have an intern draft it, or they would "blue line" it ( just write down what they wanted to accomplish) and submit it to the "Bill Drafting Committee" which would draft the bill and return it for approval. Ostensibly submitting to the committee would avoid all of the pitfalls such as unintended consequences by changes that affected other sections adversely and such.

My grandfather wrote the law, in NY State, pertaining to displaying the US flag just this way.

But not all legislators bothered to read what they submitted, and some hardly knew what they were getting into when they submitted stuff that was just a total mess.

TrueFlog wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

JKTex wrote:I want to through this out there referring to the hearing yesterday.

Springer was talking about the bill(s) and for one example, used Hospitals in his district and how employees are fearful because they aren't allowed to carry. I was confused as to why he was using that as an example, considering a hospital is not prohibited without being posted in accordance with 30.06 and being an employee, their employment policy would be the issue.

Am I missing something or was he shooting at the wrong target?

Yes, you're missing something. HB 3218 removes the ability for a hospital to deny carry through 30.06, as it does for all the other prohibitions that were relegated to 30.06 in 46.035(i).

How do you figure that? If HB 3218 passes, a hospital would be no different than a movie theater, shoe store, or Wal-Mart. They can still post a 30.06 if they want. There's nothing in the bill that says a hospital can't...

Private hospitals could prohibit carrying by use of TPC §30.06, but public hospitals could not (TPC §30.06(e)). However, this only deals with prosecution; hospitals could still have policies that prohibits employees from having handguns in the building.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:They're recorded. You can watch it for yourself here - http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... 3041810420" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Go to the 1:24 mark for the start of testimony on HB 3218 and HB 3219.

I've had zero luck with streaming this... I'm able to get it started (both video and audio) using VLC (I won't load Real Player, it's too spammy and performance is bad).. VLC will stream about 3 minutes before it freezes. Forget about skipping ahead.

Anyone have this saved to their local drive and care to share it?

Cheers.

Real Player works great for me. No spammy, it's fairly quick (on an old clunky PC) and navigation works fine.

RoyGBiv wrote:

baldeagle wrote:They're recorded. You can watch it for yourself here - http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... 3041810420" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Go to the 1:24 mark for the start of testimony on HB 3218 and HB 3219.

I've had zero luck with streaming this... I'm able to get it started (both video and audio) using VLC (I won't load Real Player, it's too spammy and performance is bad).. VLC will stream about 3 minutes before it freezes. Forget about skipping ahead.

Anyone have this saved to their local drive and care to share it?

Cheers.

Try changing all of the streams in RealPlayer to use only HTTP. I had to do that or it would keep stalling or wouldn't play. If you wait for it to buffer it you can then jump to the pertinent sections as well.

No new news... Hopefully a committee vote some time this week..??