TexasCHLforum.com

"Politics" and "great" do not belong in the same sentence.
Okay, except for ^that^ one.

stevie_d_64 wrote: I would like to know if anyone else sees that if the revenue generated drops, will the quality of service track with that reduction???

i.e.:

- time it takes to process applications???

- quality of the staffing and information in the Austin CHL office???

Just some knee-jerk observations...

Honestly, can it get worse???

snscott wrote:I would rather this law read that any company which has such a policy is LEGALLY LIABLE for their employees' personal safety from the time they leave home to come to work to the time they arrive home from work each day, so that if I am killed in a car-jacking, for example, my family can sue the company into the ground.

It will never happen, but I would love to see this go into effect. Do you realize how many companies would immediately become "gun friendly" overnight.

Exactly! In Texas, they can simply fire you and give no reason whatsoever. So, even though they won't be able to have a policy to enforce, they can still fire you for "no reason" after learning of a handgun in your vehicle.

At least thats how I understand it. Is that right Charles?

I think its kinda funny how we are already shredding this bill and finding any and all possible backdoors, loopholes, and outright mistakes before its even made it to the floor for a vote.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Added HB 220 by King re: employer parking lots.

Every little bit helps, but I am afraid smart people might figure out a way to screw you over if they so chose to do so...

Yeah, but given the number of incorrect 30.06 signs we see all the time, smart people don't seem to be the norm in the anti-gun groups.

Yeah but the proposed law states:

Sec. 411.203. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYERS; LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.
(a) This subchapter does not prevent or otherwise limit the right
of a public or private employer to prohibit persons who are licensed
under this subchapter from carrying a concealed handgun on the
premises of the business.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a
public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce
any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person
licensed under this subchapter from transporting or storing a
concealed handgun in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking
garage, or other designated parking area. A private employer may
prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed
handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area the employer provides for employees if:
(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is
completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and
(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot,
garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel.
(c) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil
action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the
possession of a concealed handgun by a person licensed under this
subchapter.
(d) This section does not authorize a person licensed under
this subchapter to carry a concealed handgun on any premises where
the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by state or
federal law.

So they aren't supossed to have any policy that restricts it. That seems to overstep whatever they may wish to include in their company policy. Doesn't it? This would mean that I cannot be fired for storing my firearm in my vehicle. Of course, being in Texas, I would still be fired(stupid "At will" state ).

I read that one yesterday since another memeber posted it elsewhere. I am concerned about something though. My employer's policy states: "Regardless of the laws of a particular jurisdiction, the possession of any dangerous substances, including firearms, explosives and other weapons, is strictly prohibited in the workplace or elsewhere while conducting company business."

Can they disregard the law? If this goes into effect, will they be forced to change this policy?

Yes, I do realize that the "workplace" is not technically the parking lot, and I won't be "conducting" business from there, so it doesn't really apply, but a good lawyer could sure make it stick.

Thank you very much Charles. That clears it up perfectly. I completely forgot that while it was the New Orleans local PD that asked for it, it was Federal agents and military that actually performed the confiscation.

As for you second point, does that only apply to local rescue workers? If its a military rescue, say the National Gaurd, can they still hold to that limitation and restrict access without temporary surrender. Or does it change as soon as they cross state lines?

txinvestigator wrote:

kauboy wrote:It's going to be worded as such so that if Billy is shot while commiting a crime, as long as the shooting is ruled as justifiable, his family cannot sue in civil court against the shooter. It will also do away with the "retreat first" junk (obviously), but that is not what I consider to be the biggest part of the bill.

.

\

Thats not in the bill;

SECTIONA4.AASection 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec.A83.001.AAAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 SECTIONA5.AAChapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec.A83.002.AACOURT COSTS, ATTORNEY ’S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney ’s fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

Ok, maybe I should have said "his family cannot win in civil court against the shooter". Better?

It's going to be worded as such so that if Billy is shot while commiting a crime, as long as the shooting is ruled as justifiable, his family cannot sue in civil court against the shooter. It will also do away with the "retreat first" junk (obviously), but that is not what I consider to be the biggest part of the bill.

I personally don't understand the Senate Bill though. Pres Bush arleady signd at the Federal level a law that does the same thing. In fact, I posted a link on the forums about it. I think its under the General CHL Discussion section and called something like "Never again".