TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

puma guy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
You have two choices, 1) ignore it; or 2) wait until HB508 becomes law (9/1/13) then send a certified letter to the City Manager with a copy to the AG's office complaining about the sign. The reference to a city ordinance that mentions CHL's should come within the scope of HB508, but it is less clear than if the reference were on the sign itself.

Chas.

I assume the bill passed? TFC still shows to calendars 4/19/13.

It passed the House, but not the Senate. I'm so swamped I haven't been able to update the Bill Status Report.

Sorry,
Chas.

No apology necessary, I understand completely. THANK YOU for all you do for Texas shooters and CHL. I checked the bill on legiscan.com and found the status.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
You have two choices, 1) ignore it; or 2) wait until HB508 becomes law (9/1/13) then send a certified letter to the City Manager with a copy to the AG's office complaining about the sign. The reference to a city ordinance that mentions CHL's should come within the scope of HB508, but it is less clear than if the reference were on the sign itself.

Chas.

I assume the bill passed? TFC still shows to calendars 4/19/13.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

e-bil wrote:Is the change to 46.035 just cleaning up the wording or is there a bigger change there I'm not seeing.

It's an important change, but I would argue that it's a clarification directed at intellectually dishonest people. It makes it clear that 1) only meetings that are subject to the Open Meetings Act are off-limits (not two guys having coffee and talking shop); and 2) only the rooms in use, rather than the entire building, are off-limits.

The definition of "premises" created in SB60 in 1995 expressly states in part ". . . building or portion of a building . . ." This language was intended to be a limitation on the areas of a building that were off-limits, but intellectually dishonest people treat the "portion of a building" phrase not as a limitation, but as a trigger to render the entire building off-limits. It reminds me of a question one of my sons asked me when they were young. "Dad, why don't people just do what they are supposed to do?" My response, "If they did, I wouldn't have a job."

Chas.

You are very kind in your label "intellectually dishonest people". I find myself thinking and sometimes using harsher terms when I have dealt with this issue, but you have influenced me to rethink that.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

2firfun50 wrote:Is HB508 dead in committee if not out by May 18th.? That will be a real shame!

It may be heard tomorrow.

Chas.

Mr. Cotten,
I know passage by the House is no guaranty a bill will carry both houses but, what do think the chances are it makes it out of committee and ultimately passes the Senate?

I am watching this bill closely. My city (Pasadena) has put up 30.06 signs at almost all school parking lot entrances, at the parking lot entrances of the administration buildings, the school district tax office and now have installed them at the entrance of the newly paved football stadium parking lot. They also continue to post the city owned civic center improperly. Pasadena elections were held today and I spoke with one city council candidate about the signs and he had no clue what 30.06 was. The other candidate had only supporters, including a councilman from a different district who is a supporter but not up for election. One supporter was a PO and though he knew what 30.06 was he was ignorant of the government building exemption. The councilman wasn't aware that signs were being put up improperly either. I advised them that HB 508 had passed the house and if approved by the senate would put Pasadena in jeopardy of facing numerous civil fines if they kept the signs. Knowing the city's propensity for failing to follow rules I told the councilman I would be very disappointed if my tax dollars were wasted paying fines. The PO did recall that the sign had been removed from the entrance to the Police Station.