Thanks for the heads-up.NotRPB wrote:********** GENERAL STATE CALENDAR **********
HOUSE BILLS
SECOND READING
etc
Search found 2 matches
- Wed May 06, 2015 5:09 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 353
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2446
Re: HB 353
- Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:01 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 353
- Replies: 11
- Views: 2446
Re: HB 353
HB353 has been heard in the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee, and a committee substitute was voted out favorably 9-0 and sent to Calendars Committee.
It appears the committee substitute made three major changes:
1) It changed the relief from restrictions from an "exception" to a "defense to prosecution." As I understand the terms, an exception prevents arrest and prosecution for an act; a "defense to prosecution" means you could be arrested and prosecuted, but you would have a statutory defense against being convicted, namely that you met the requirements of the law for not being guilty. Thus in the committee substitute, the protection for volunteer firefighter/ems personnel is reduced somewhat.
2) It removed the application of the change to counties with populations of 50,000 or less. In other words, if it passes it will apply throughout Texas.
3) It adds a change to the Civil Practices and Remedies Code concerning the discharge of a handgun by an emergency service volunteer who is has a CHL. I have read through that part of the CP & R Code a couple times, and....I can't really figure out what's going on, so I don't know what this part really means. I assume it has an effect on whether the individual volunteer or his organization or governmental unit he reports to is liable for the effect of a handgun discharge, but I can't tell which way it cuts. Maybe Mr Cotton can tell us in his spare time.
Note that at this writing, the TFC Bill Status Report for this bill is slightly incorrect, wrt to the county population of 50,000 or less.
ETA: Here is the committee analysis with the side-by-side comparison of the introduced version and the substitute.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00353H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It appears the committee substitute made three major changes:
1) It changed the relief from restrictions from an "exception" to a "defense to prosecution." As I understand the terms, an exception prevents arrest and prosecution for an act; a "defense to prosecution" means you could be arrested and prosecuted, but you would have a statutory defense against being convicted, namely that you met the requirements of the law for not being guilty. Thus in the committee substitute, the protection for volunteer firefighter/ems personnel is reduced somewhat.
2) It removed the application of the change to counties with populations of 50,000 or less. In other words, if it passes it will apply throughout Texas.
3) It adds a change to the Civil Practices and Remedies Code concerning the discharge of a handgun by an emergency service volunteer who is has a CHL. I have read through that part of the CP & R Code a couple times, and....I can't really figure out what's going on, so I don't know what this part really means. I assume it has an effect on whether the individual volunteer or his organization or governmental unit he reports to is liable for the effect of a handgun discharge, but I can't tell which way it cuts. Maybe Mr Cotton can tell us in his spare time.
Note that at this writing, the TFC Bill Status Report for this bill is slightly incorrect, wrt to the county population of 50,000 or less.
ETA: Here is the committee analysis with the side-by-side comparison of the introduced version and the substitute.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00353H.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;