TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DallasCHL wrote:There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report.

I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee report that became the final version of SB766. Also, you missed different verbiage that appears on the first page of the analysis that reads differently; "C.S.S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions. There is no mention of CHL's here.

I didn't miss any verbiage. The two statements give different impressions, but do not directly conflict. As I said, the language that I posted is in the House committee report. You correctly point out that the conference committee report is silent, thus there is no conflict between the two. The relevant language in the bill did not change. The analysis I posted is part of the legislative history, and may be considered by a court interpreting this law. I don't know if there is testimony or debate that clarifies this point; I hope there is. You may argue that the law is clear and whoever wrote the report just read it wrong. I don't know if that's a winning argument, but as I said, I wouldn't be willing to risk it.

I understand that you are personally invested in this. I'm not the only person I have spoken to who sees the ambiguity. Even if you think the bill is crystal clear, you will still have to contend with the legislative history.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There's nothing ambiguous about SB321. It's written precisely how bills/codes are written. You continue to ignore the importance of the distinguishing term "otherwise" and your interpretation could only have merit of that word were not in the bill. (That's precisely why it was included.)

I'm not ignoring anything. I've read every word. Many laws are ambiguous.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DallasCHL wrote:Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

Where did you find the quoted language? The latest analysis is the one for the House version of the Bill and it is the same on this point as is the Senate analysis. You can find both here. The conference report does not contain this language, nor do I see it in the comparison. It can be found here.

Chas.

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report. You can find the analysis from the House committee report, which contains the quoted language, here.

All that matters is what the courts think it means, and it is ambiguous enough that if I didn't have a CHL I wouldn't test it. If the law is supposed to apply to everyone lawfully possessing a firearm, I see no reason for the CHL language in 56.021.

Paragrouper wrote:

DallasCHL wrote:

apostate wrote:

rm9792 wrote:What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders.

That is not accurate.

"A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

I understand that you're reading the first part of the section as reciting a list with three elements. That's one of at least two possible was to read the law, which is why I said it's badly written. But the way you're reading it, "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" is redundant or meaningless. A CHL holder lawfully possessing a firearm is included in the second or the three supposed groups (unless you think it refers to CHL holders who are unlawfully possessing a firearm?). This violates the basic principle of statutory construction, which is that all the words have meaning.

As I said, whoever wrote the House committee report read it to apply only to CHL holders. The section applies to CHL holders who are otherwise (i.e., notwithstanding this section) lawfully possessing a firearm or ammunition.

apostate wrote:

rm9792 wrote:What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.