TexasCHLforum.com

MeMelYup wrote:I would like to know who votes NO on this bill (3218), especially if they pass 3219.

HB 3218 and HB 3219 are both pending in committee. It looks like they're dead for this session.

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.

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.

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.

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).

styxx wrote:Anyone care to enlighten me as to any logical reason that the apparently dead HB 700 and open carry "2nd amendment rights" were the theme of so much testimony on two CHL bills ??

I think it's because some people have no respect for the process. When you go to committee meetings you are supposed to do one of three things; observe, register as for, against or on the bill and testify for, against or on the bill. (On means you are an informational resource, like an expert on law enforcement policy, a professional psychologist, an attorney, etc.)

Each bill gets its own separate hearing and you have to sign up for each one separately if you want to testify. But you're supposed to stick to that bill and no others. Rambling babbling about the Constitution irritates the committee members because it wastes time and means they will be finishing up later than they wanted to.

There are 41 House committees and six subcommittees. There are approximately 5500 bills introduced each session. That means, on average, each committee has to hear and consider an average of 117 bills. And they have time pressures, because those bills have to pass out of committee, get scheduled by Calendars, pass on the floor, be sent to the Senate and go through the entire process again and be done, engrossed and sent to the governor before 140 days have passed.

Imagine how you would feel if you were trying to give every bill a fair hearing and bozo after bozo walked up to the mike and rambled on incoherently about stuff completely unrelated to the bill you're discussing.

stash wrote:I was not even aware of 3219. Does that mean if 3218 fails and 3219 passes, elected officials with chl's will be able too protect themselves in locations where the common person with a chl cannot? If that is the case, I don't feel so good about 3218 passing. Hope I am wrong.

That's exactly what it means.

RoyGBiv wrote:Any news from today re: 3218?
I've been unable to watch any of the live feed.

Thanks.!

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.

Edit: The same woman who lectured Chairman Pickett on the Constitution testified on the bill. Her name is Rachel Malone and she represents Texas Firearms Freedom.

Charles testified and gave the stats on the CHL record - 16 times less likely to commit a crime than a general citizen - 7 times less likely to commit a crime than LEOs.

Edit 2: Rep. Springer presented a committee substitute that removed the removal of the prohibition against carrying in correctional facilities.

JKTex wrote:

baldeagle wrote:A note to OCers: If you want a bill to pass out of committee it might be wise not to lecture the very person who holds the keys to the bill's fate in his hands about the Constitution. Insulting him is not going to motivate him to give your bill a fair hearing. I guarantee you, if HB 700 wasn't dead before today, the idiot woman who "testified" killed it deader than a doornail. It may even take years now to find a legislator with the courage to introduce another OC bill given the treatment the chairman received with this one. Please tell your "members" that self-inflicted bill-icide isn't going to move your bills to passage.

Agreed!!! What was the group she was there representing? I'd hope we find it's an anti-gun group and she was got to Austin in a Trojan horse. Although she testified positive and pretty civil on others. I don't understand why people feel the need to do that. They almost always get schooled!

I believe she was speaking on her own behalf. I recognized her voice. She has testified before on other pro-gun legislation. She must be either really dedicated or live close by and not have other obligations.

A note to OCers: If you want a bill to pass out of committee it might be wise not to lecture the very person who holds the keys to the bill's fate in his hands about the Constitution. Insulting him is not going to motivate him to give your bill a fair hearing. I guarantee you, if HB 700 wasn't dead before today, the idiot woman who "testified" killed it deader than a doornail. It may even take years now to find a legislator with the courage to introduce another OC bill given the treatment the chairman received with this one. Please tell your "members" that self-inflicted bill-icide isn't going to move your bills to passage.

Groan...a witness is lecturing Chairman Pickett about his oath...now he's grilling her...gawd...some people just don't get it...you don't get change by insulting legislators - especially the chairman of the committee that holds the fate of your bill in his hands.....groan.....groan....groan...

Oh Lord, she's an OCer. Now she's demanding that he bring HB 700 up for a vote. This is painful....awful...

The Annoyed Man wrote:Who is the misbegotten waste of oxygen who drafted and sponsored this abomination?

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=40" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He also wants to ban energy drinks from Texas schools.

Charles, for those who are getting tired of the process, can you say that our calls and emails made a difference?