TexasCHLforum.com

barres wrote:So, what's the difference between HB284 and HB103? They seem to say the same thing to me.

They are identical bills. Since we are dealing with pre-filed bills, my guess is that neither author was aware of the other's bill. One bill will move and the author of the other will not push their bill.

Chas.

stevie_d_64 wrote:HB233 (Ritter D-A) Relating to a waiver of concealed handgun license fees for certain members and veterans of the military. Waives all CHL fees for active and honorably retired military. I stand to be corrected, but after looking at the link to this bill in the other thread, I read that this includes ALL honorably discharged members of the armed forces...And not just the honorably retired members...

Good catch, you're right. I meant to type "discharged;" I don't have a clue why I typed "retired" unless I was thinking about retirement at the time.

Chas.

nitrogen wrote:Can you explain the problem with HB242 in more detail? On the face of it, I don't see what's wrong with it besides being unnecessary.

By amending TPC §30.06, HB242 opens the entire text of 30.06 to amendment. Unlike the federal congress where you can tack anything on to any bill, Texas will not allow an amendment that is not germane to the subject matter of the bill. By amending TPC 30.06, any change to it's language would be germane, including a repeal of the improvements made by SB501, or opening loopholes for governmental entities/agencies to use 30.06. Since HB242 is offered by a a clear anti-gun Representative with a "D" rating, and since it's provisions are entirely unnecessary, I have to suspect he has another motive.

Chas.

txinvestigator wrote:

nitrogen wrote:Law and company policy are different things.

They can fire you for violating company policy, but thye cant file tresspass charges.

Actually this law would restrict the type of policy they could legally have.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00220I.doc

Correct. Texas is an employment at will State, meaning an employer can fire someone for any reason that does not violate Texas or federal law, or no reason at all. There are exceptions, but they are not relevant for this discussion. This bill will make it illegal to fire someone for having a gun in their car.

Chas.

kauboy wrote: I personally don't understand the Senate Bill though. Pres Bush arleady signd at the Federal level a law that does the same thing.

State action is also needed to close a potential loophole. The federal statue cannot cover state or local LEO's except under limited circumstances such as those receiving federal funds. Here is the federal statute:

`(a) Prohibition on Confiscation of Firearms- No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may-- . . .

This is as far as Congress can legally go, so it's up to the states to close the loophole, as does SB112.

I should also note that SB112 actually provides more protection beyond closing this loophole. The federal statute makes an exception for "temporary surrender" of a firearm as a condition for boarding an evacuation vehicle. Here is the language:

`(b) Limitation- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency.

SB112 does not contain this exception. So if you are treading water with your pistol in your holster, no Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff can say "give me your gun if you want to get in the boat." Yeah, I'm still pretty miffed about those guys!

Chas.

nitrogen wrote:So if I read HB103 correctly, it doesn't say that someone that's no-billed by a GJ can't be sued civilly, but they can recover any money they lost because of the suit?

Is this a good thing? What's to stop someone from suddenly declaring bankrupcy or just not paying? You're still screwed then.

It's the best that can be done and I'm not referring to political issues or anything like that. It is not possible to prohibit the filing of a lawsuit, unless you are granted immunity. Even then a suit can be filed, but it will be dismissed via a motion for summary judgment. A good example is sovereign immunity for the government that prohibits suits against governmental bodies. The Tort Claims Act waives this immunity in very limited circumstances and allows people to sue the government over certain matters like contract disputes, automobile accidents, etc.

There is no realistic way to craft an immunity for someone shooting another person. CRPC §81.001 creates an affirmative defense for anyone who used force, including deadly force, pursuant to TPC Ch. 9, Sub-Chapter C, but it has to be judicially determined somewhere that the person lawfully used deadly force, instead of committing a murder.

While it is true that the person shot, or their survivors, could file suit then file bankruptcy if attorney fees and expenses are awarded against them pursuant to CRPC §83.002, this is very unlikely. No plaintiff's attorney in their right mind is going to take a case like this, advance expenses, then get a summary judgment granted against them and lose every dime they put into the case. I know the media and bogus groups have stirred up a frenzy against frivolous lawsuits, but in truth they are very rare. I'm not about to take a case knowing I have little or no chance to win and neither is any other attorney.

A final note, with the new presumption of reasonableness in HB103, it is even more likely that suit will not be filed and, if it is, it will be easier for the defendant to get a summary judgment and greatly reduce the defense costs.

Chas.