It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.will381796 wrote:Was there any discussion of this bill in the Committee meeting today?
Chas.
Moderator: Charles L. Cotton
It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.will381796 wrote:Was there any discussion of this bill in the Committee meeting today?
Not perfect, but not bad. Great work all!Charles L. Cotton wrote:It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.will381796 wrote:Was there any discussion of this bill in the Committee meeting today?
Chas.
Charles, I cannot find where, on the Senate pages, it indicates that SB 730 was voted out of committee. Where is it? Also, in viewing the "text" portion it still shows the original text. Please help me find these things.Charles L. Cotton wrote:It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.
Chas.
The Legislative website hasn't been updated yet. It seems to be running a little slower this session.CWOOD wrote:Charles, I cannot find where, on the Senate pages, it indicates that SB 730 was voted out of committee. Where is it? Also, in viewing the "text" portion it still shows the original text. Please help me find these things.Charles L. Cotton wrote:It was voted out of committee favorably, as amended. The amendment exempted primary and secondary schools.
Chas.
I contacted Sen. Hegar's office by phone and email thanking him (and Sen. Patrick) for the intelligent and assertive defense of SB 730 in committee. I also asked him to not allow teachers to be forced to become second class citizens regarding the second amendment.
I feel that if he has indeed deferred to the "education lobby" on this it was because it was needed to get the rest of the bill passed. Sen. Hegar has been so pro 2A that if he feels he needs this backstep to pass the bulk of the bill, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and trust his judgement. I don't like it but can accept that these gains we enjoy have been incrimental in nature. We can address it again later.
Gosh! It is runnig VERY SLOOOOOOW. I believe last session it was updated within 24 hours. Here it is 3 days later and the Senate website is still showing no change and still has the "As Introduced" text.Charles L. Cotton wrote: The Legislative website hasn't been updated yet. It seems to be running a little slower this session.
Chas.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is just a guess, but Senator Rodney Ellis earned his "F" rating, so I suspect he'll oppose it. He even made a joke about scoring some points with the business lobby by opposing it.KD5NRH wrote:So, which, if any, committee members are expected to oppose it?
Chas.
This law only affects CHL holders.A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees
What about the first part of that sentence?AEA wrote:"holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"
I read this to mean anyone that can lawfully possess a firearm (not limited to CHL's).
Anyone that carries under the Motorist Protection Act is covered in this bill as far as I can see.
They comma is the difference. When you read it, pause at the comma and see if it doesn't make a difference in your interpretation.Purplehood wrote:What about the first part of that sentence?AEA wrote:"holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm"
I read this to mean anyone that can lawfully possess a firearm (not limited to CHL's).
Anyone that carries under the Motorist Protection Act is covered in this bill as far as I can see.