TexasCHLforum.com

HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB508 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Charles, is this a big problem? Shots crossing educational facility boundaries? Seems a rather odd bill.

The other bill is HB 508, not HB 208. I like it.

Keith B wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Charles, is this a big problem? Shots crossing educational facility boundaries? Seems a rather odd bill.

The other bill is HB 508, not HB 208. I like it.

Thanks for catching the typo.

I consider HB507 a bad bill because it is a strict liability crime. There's already a provision in the Wildlife Code that makes it a strict liability crime to fire a shot that crosses a property line, but it's only a Class C Misdemeanor. I don't like it, but at least the penalty is minimal. With HB507, a person need not intentionally, knowingly or recklessly discharge a firearm in the direction of a school. All that matters is that they pulled the trigger.

If HB507 passes, someone could fire a round and be subject to a Class A Misdemeanor (1 year in jail and/or $4,000 fine) and loss their CHL for 5 to 7 years even if:
1. They had no idea a school are within range or the round fired ricocheted multiple times causing it to cross school property; and
2. No one was injured and no property damage occurred;

HB507 is a bad bill.

Chas.

A-R wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB208 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Bravo!!!!!

Now... just how will they find out WHICH public employee is culpable for posting an unenforceable sign? Nobody is better at passing the buck & ducking accountability than our fine public employees...

Agree on 507 being a bad bill...

And ... with
HB507

How in the world would you figure out who to prosecute (OR HOW TO ) for the bullet holes at UTEP that originated across the border in Juarez

Regarding HB507, I'm wondering whether the sponsor had in mind the late-2011 shooting of two middle school students down here in the Valley, in Edinburg. The last I recall reading, the shooter was someone sighting in a rifle in a field adjacent to the school. He sent stray rounds onto a basketball court while kids were out shooting baskets. I believe he's still awaiting trial.

The bill does seem ill-considered for the reasons already mentioned, but since Guillen's district reaches down this way (not including Edinburg), perhaps this gave rise to the proposal.

RPB wrote:And ... with
HB507

How in the world would you figure out who to prosecute (OR HOW TO ) for the bullet holes at UTEP that originated across the border in Juarez

BHO & EH! I think that would fall under the 'high crimes & misdemeanors' clause of the constitution....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB507 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates new offense for rounds going over school property
HB508 - Guillen (D, A+) - Creates Class C offense for public employees posting unenforceable 30.06 signs.

Bravo on 508, boo on 507.


We are all already responsible for every bullet that leaves every gun, whether on a range, in self defense, or otherwise. I am not sure why/how they can prove who shot what when and why. Sounds like a feel-good law that will be abused down the road.

South Texas RGV wrote:Regarding HB507, I'm wondering whether the sponsor had in mind the late-2011 shooting of two middle school students down here in the Valley, in Edinburg. The last I recall reading, the shooter was someone sighting in a rifle in a field adjacent to the school. He sent stray rounds onto a basketball court while kids were out shooting baskets. I believe he's still awaiting trial.

The bill does seem ill-considered for the reasons already mentioned, but since Guillen's district reaches down this way (not including Edinburg), perhaps this gave rise to the proposal.

You are exactly right. It's a case of an unfortunate situation leading to a bad bill.

Chas.

I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.


(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter

The Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.

possibly I am just being paranoid, however its not paranioa if they are out to get us

JP171 wrote:I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.


(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter

The Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.

possibly I am just being paranoid, however its not paranioa if they are out to get us

I will say that NOT being paranoid is why we are where we are NOW!..We have been complacent for far too many years. I agree with your paranoia.

JP171 wrote:I wonder about HB 508 section C, the language lends itself to a very broad interpretation.


(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, in the room or rooms
where a [at any] meeting of a governmental entity is held [/color]and if the
meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code,
and the entity provided notice as required by that chapter

The Bold is the new language the blue is the old. I think that provides a loophole for abuse as in the city council uses all the rooms at city hall as meeting rooms as Texas law defines a meeting as 2 or more, council members are always going into each others offices.

Change "held" to a "currently in progress" might make it work