TexasCHLforum.com

I am reading the text of the bill and comparing it to the current statute, and it sure isn't getting any better.

Interfering with a peace officer (and an EMS or firefighter or police animal) is a Class B Misdemeanor. The bill raises that to Class A only for CHLs (who are carrying) videoing within 100', not for anyone else. There are exceptions for certain CHL holders tho: "news media employees" and employees of LE organizations. How nice.

suthdj wrote:
Ya I would have to agree with you they need space to work but the firearm part bother me.

The whole thing bothers me. This is not about getting in the way of police officers (it's OK to be within 25' if you don't have a camera?), this is targeting videoing them at work.

To get full understanding I will have to look at the whole statute in question, but it appears it does several obnoxious and unconstitutional things.
- It attempts to provide "news media" with greater 1A and reporting "privileges" than other citizens. The standard corporate news media do not own the First Amendment and should not gain extra privileges under it, nor should regular citizens be denied protection under it.
- One of the things to look up is to see how the "Emergency" definition plays into this, but it could mean that means you could not legally record police officers in your own home unless you have really large rooms -- and then you'd have to stand on the other side of the room. Or maybe traffic stops (because I am leery as to how the Emergency definition would get stretched...)
- Adding an extra 75' because the videographer is carrying with a CHL is really disgusting -- we know how all those background-checked, non-felonious, taxpaying individuals are four times as dangerous as anyone else. ... and it would not apply to Grisham or Watkins, since neither is eligible for a CHL.

Who on earth is Villalba, the author? Anyone here know him? He should get lots of grief over this.