TexasCHLforum.com

arthurcw wrote:That’s really disappointing.

Yes it is.

Chas.

If SB534 gets to the Floor, it should pass. Unfortunately, the Calendars Committee held it for almost a month, then put it way down the list on the General State Calendar, rather than the major calendar. It is possible it may be reached, but unlikely.

Chas.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No, the version passed is not as good as originally filed. The "loser pays" provisions were the cause of the Texas Trial Lawyers' intense opposition to the bill and an attorney member of the committee was holding it up until those provisions were removed.

.........................

The current law does mean a plaintiff cannot win a suit, if the deadly force was justified under Chp. 9. It also means he will lose early on, rather than after months of costly litigation. It is even more likely that no attorney will take the case; we have no desire to pour money into a case with no chance to win. This is a major improvement. Another major improvement is the expansion of civil immunity to all justifiable use of deadly force, not just when it is used in your home.

We have an excellent Castle Doctrine - I'll call it a greatly expanded Castle Doctrine.

Chas.

Charles, I'm confused. Given your comment that "This is a major improvement.", where you seem to agree with me, you also state that the version passed was not as good as the original.

What was in the original version that made it better?

The as-filed bill gave the defendant a statutory right to recover all defense costs, including attorney fees.

Chas.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:But in the amended version, the person using deadly force is declared IMMUNE from civil suit if their actions are justified under the penal code. This is much better than a mere affirmative defense. The way the final version reads, you CAN'T be sued if your actions were lawful.

Am I missing something here? To me, the version that passed looks better than the original.

No, the version passed is not as good as originally filed. The "loser pays" provisions were the cause of the Texas Trial Lawyers' intense opposition to the bill and an attorney member of the committee was holding it up until those provisions were removed. (He later tried to focus on his being a co-author and claiming he always intended to vote for the bill. He never mentioned delaying the bill.)

There is no such thing as immunity from suit, only immunity from civil liability. The Texas Constitution will not permit a law that would deny a person access to the courts. The current law does mean a plaintiff cannot win a suit, if the deadly force was justified under Chp. 9. It also means he will lose early on, rather than after months of costly litigation. It is even more likely that no attorney will take the case; we have no desire to pour money into a case with no chance to win. This is a major improvement. Another major improvement is the expansion of civil immunity to all justifiable use of deadly force, not just when it is used in your home.

We have an excellent Castle Doctrine - I'll call it a greatly expanded Castle Doctrine.

Chas.

gmckinl wrote:Chas. - in your experience, why is it so hard to get a better version passed? With an immunity clause for the employer, I don't know why the objections would be too difficult to overcome.

There are two factors. One is the private property rights issue and the other is the power of the petrochemical & business community. Just to show you how strong the private property rights issue is, Rep. Hupp was strongly opposed to the parking lot bill last session and she was as pro-gun, pro-CHL as one can be. I think she later softened her position, but since it was never going to get out of the Calendars Committee, that was a safe change-of-mind. Don't get me wrong, I think the private property rights issue is bogus when dealing with commercial property that's heavily regulated now.

As to the petrochemical industry and business community, I honestly don't know why they are over reacting to this issue. Nevertheless, they are and their friends in Austin are our friends, and they have more money. It's that simple.

gmckinl wrote:I really want to be able to go straight to the rifle range after work w/o having to go home first. This bill doesn't help with that.

Yep, I understand and I agree. But look at the difficulty we face getting a bill passed that deals with a CHL's ability to protect their lives while commuting to and from work. You can imagine how much more difficult it would be to convince a majority in the House and Senate that we need our long guns with us so we can go play after work.

gmckinl wrote:Since I won't hand my supervisor a "lay me off first letter", it doesn't help w/ CHL either. Bummer, I had high hopes for this session.

Again, I understand your concern and if SB534 passes, I wouldn't advocate anyone take advantage of the bill, if they feel it is imprudent. However, that's a personal choice and undoubtedly many people will choose to provide the employer notice. For them, SB534 will be a very beneficial change to Texas employment law.

gmckinl wrote:. . . With an immunity clause for the employer, . . .

Just watch, that provision won't be there if it were to come to a vote. The Texas Trial Lawyers Assoc. (TTLA) has already testified against that portion of the bill, and they were successful in getting the "loser pays" provision deleted from Castle Doctrine and it had huge co-sponsor support.

Chas.

kw5kw wrote: . . . That's why I don't like the don't tell law better.

Russ

I do too, but it will not pass. So it really is a matter of SB534 or nothing.

Chas.

I fully understand the concerns expressed about the employer notice provisions in SB534. To be perfectly candid, I prefer other one of the other three "parking lot" bills, especially Rep. Farabee's HB1037. (I bet you can guess why I like that one more than others. ) However, the reality is none of the other three bills will get passed in this session. I listened to the Senate Criminal Justice Committee hearing yesterday and was very impressed with the discussion and questions asked by the Committee Members. For the first time, they are taking a serious look at this issue and I think we are seeing converts to our side of the CHL v. employer dispute.

I believe it is important to get something passed so we can work on improving it, just as we had to do with SB60 in 1995. The first CHL statute wasn't perfect, but it was very good and it opened the door for a string of improvements over several sessions. Don't get me wrong, I am not opining that SB534 will pass and ultimately be signed by the Governor. I am saying that it is the only "parking lot" bill that has even the slightest chance of passing. I think it more likely that the hard work that has been done for the last two sessions will result in the passage of a "parking lot" bill in some form in 2009. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Some people fear termination if they notify an employer that they have a CHL and want to have a gun in the car. This is a legitimate concern. However, while Texas is an employment-at-will state, it is not as easy to fire someone for a prohibited reason than many people believe. The larger the company, the harder it is to do. If someone is terminated because of their race, religion, age, etc. their employer never discloses this in the employee's personnel file. I a suit for wrongful termination, the employee's attorney will have to prove the true reason for termination and there are various ways to do that. Things such as the timing of the termination, past job performance reviews, patterns of termination a certain group of employees, etc. are all evidence that the "official" reason for termination is a sham. Is this easy to prove? No, it's not. But most companies don't want to pay to defend such suits and they don't like the publicity. Unlike most wrongful termination cases, firing a CHL is far more likely to get the attention of the media.

A lot of people are currently keeping guns in their cars in violation of company policy. If they get caught, they have no recourse whatsoever. If SB534 passes, CHL's will have a choice of following it provisions, or continuing to keep a gun in their car without disclosing the information required by SB534. The choice and the risk are up to the individual. To me the bottom line is this. SB534 isn't perfect, but it is a big step in the right direction and it's far better than what we have now.

Chas.