TexasCHLforum.com

GOOD NEWS - TEXAS - EVERYONE NEEDS TO CALL --

- Also, any legal types here ? I wonder if this will allow CHL to carry on Government property, I and several people on this forum work at at JSC/NASA - We CAN NOT have any weapon past the main GATE..

Need lots to call..

BAT


Tuesday, February 17, 2009


Last week we reported to you that State Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) had introduced Senate Bill 730 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 00730I.pdf , NRA-backed legislation allowing employees to store legally-owned firearms in their locked, private motor vehicles while parked at work. This week, State Representative Stephen Frost (D- Atlanta) filed House Bill 1301 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 01301I.pdf, the House companion bill to SB 730!

Like SB 730, HB 1301 would prevent employers from making you choose between your personal safety and keeping your job. Big business and industry representatives will pull out all the stops to defeat this measure. It's time to find out whether your State Representatives stand with corporate executives who make decisions about your personal safety from a boardroom, or whether your elected officials stand with hard-working Texans who simply wish to exercise their right to lawfully transport firearms in their cars and trucks -- a right recognized under state law that employers' "No Firearms" policies clearly conflict with.

Please call your State Representative in their capitol office and respectfully urge them to co-author and support HB 1301. Be sure to let your State Representative know that the Oklahoma and Louisiana Legislatures have already passed similar laws; it's time that the Texas Legislature do the same. Contact information for House members can be found by clicking here http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/welcome.php. If you don't know who your State Representative is, you can use the "Find Your Legislator" tool at the same web address.

Also, if you have a compelling story to tell your State Representative about your work situation -- a lengthy commute, odd-hour shifts, a potentially dangerous parking situation at work -- by all means, share it with them in an email; but try to keep the communication short and to the point, and be certain to put "Please Support HB 1301" in the subject line of your email so they immediately know what bill you're contacting them about.

bat1 wrote:Also, any legal types here ? I wonder if this will allow CHL to carry on Government property, I and several people on this forum work at at JSC/NASA - We CAN NOT have any weapon past the main GATE.

'Fraid not. In general, a state cannot make a law that compels the federal government to do or refrain from doing something.

There may be exceptions. It seems that the feds have to comply with zoning regulations and building codes. I don't know what the legal basis for that is (I searched).

- JIm

Large thread started here last week http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 92&t=22488" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for federal property, it will not change. This is a state law and would not cover federal property. That is in the thread.

Keith B wrote:Large thread started here last week viewtopic.php?f=92&t=22488

I may be wrong but, that thread is largely based on the OP creating a roll call of members contacting their representatives.

This thread, at least by the OP's title, is opening the issue for general discussion.
So, as far as that goes, I'd like to know the specifics should a vehicle be broken into and the firearm stolen.

First of all, I want to state that I hope this bill passes.
But, recently where I work, there was a rash of vehicle break-ins in the parking lot. There seems to be a lot of isolated areas where this could occur, and I would imagine that there are a lot of companies with this same problem.

With the new law, the business would not have to provide any additional security and would not be liable for the theft. With the bad economy, crime is on the rise and we can't guard our vehicles all the time and there is no stipulation about safeguarding the gun other than locking the vehicle. So, the gunowner need do nothing else other than store it in their glovebox, console or under the seat. Obviously, it's better to have something that locks and secures to the vehicle, but we all know that not everyone is going to do that.

Does anyone anticipate any problems with this if the new law is passed?

O6nop wrote:Does anyone anticipate any problems with this if the new law is passed?

The benefits of the law outweigh the potential disadvantages.

O6nop wrote:First of all, I want to state that I hope this bill passes.
But, recently where I work, there was a rash of vehicle break-ins in the parking lot. There seems to be a lot of isolated areas where this could occur, and I would imagine that there are a lot of companies with this same problem.

With the new law, the business would not have to provide any additional security and would not be liable for the theft. With the bad economy, crime is on the rise and we can't guard our vehicles all the time and there is no stipulation about safeguarding the gun other than locking the vehicle. So, the gunowner need do nothing else other than store it in their glovebox, console or under the seat. Obviously, it's better to have something that locks and secures to the vehicle, but we all know that not everyone is going to do that.

Does anyone anticipate any problems with this if the new law is passed?

The potential for this "problem" has existed since CHL was introduced and private property owners had the right and ability to bar people from carrying on their property. The CHL'er could lock his piece in his or her car. But they could do so insecurely, which could pose a problem, if the car was broken into. The parking lot bills don't change that at all. It is still the CHL'er's responsibility to secure his or her firearm if it is not on his or her person. These bills at least give some CHL'ers the right to carry to and from work in situations where they cannot do so today due to employer's policies regarding their parking lots. These bills don't alleviate personal responsibility. They don't address it, because it is personal. They just restore the ability of CHL'ers to have their CCW with them on the trip to and from work (and therefore on any errands run before or after work or during lunch, too).

And the bill also appears to remove the burden of liability that may arise from employers having to allow CHLers to store on their property. The only part that bothers me is the "separate but equal" parking facilities issue. Though I am not sure if that is part of the bill or someones idea that it is.

Purplehood wrote:The only part that bothers me is the "separate but equal" parking facilities issue. Though I am not sure if that is part of the bill or someones idea that it is.

it is part of the bill.

The author probably thinks that is it a necessary compromise to get the bill passed.

In the last session, industry objected very strongly to this bill.

If they have a secure parking lot, and CHL holders must park outside it, then they can search the person of the CHL holders who pass through security. The CHL holders will have identified themselves by parking in the separate lot.

Of course, unless they search every vehicle coming into the secure lot every time, anyone will be able to bring in a firearm and pull off a planned rampage -- especially someone who doesn't care if he gets caught.

- Jim

Please see this thread http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 10&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a "call to action."

Chas.

I would hope that this proposed legislation would also apply to educators. Currently my spouse is prohibited from daily carry due to her employment contract with a large Houston area ISD. Even though she has a CHL the employment contract supersedes her rights. I know that I do not want her working in her High School's location without the ability to have access to her handgun on the way to and from campus.

sbb wrote:I would hope that this proposed legislation would also apply to educators. Currently my spouse is prohibited from daily carry due to her employment contract with a large Houston area ISD. Even though she has a CHL the employment contract supersedes her rights. I know that I do not want her working in her High School's location without the ability to have access to her handgun on the way to and from campus.

If passed in its current forum, your wife would be protected, as it applies to both public and private employers.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

sbb wrote:I would hope that this proposed legislation would also apply to educators. Currently my spouse is prohibited from daily carry due to her employment contract with a large Houston area ISD. Even though she has a CHL the employment contract supersedes her rights. I know that I do not want her working in her High School's location without the ability to have access to her handgun on the way to and from campus.

If passed in its current forum, your wife would be protected, as it applies to both public and private employers.

Chas.

sbb's wife would be covered because she has a CHL. However, I believe federal law prohibits firearms anywhere in a school zone unless the individual has a CHL. This means that the bill would not help those teachers who don't have a CHL as they would still be bound by the feds. Is this correct?

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

sbb wrote:I would hope that this proposed legislation would also apply to educators. Currently my spouse is prohibited from daily carry due to her employment contract with a large Houston area ISD. Even though she has a CHL the employment contract supersedes her rights. I know that I do not want her working in her High School's location without the ability to have access to her handgun on the way to and from campus.

If passed in its current forum, your wife would be protected, as it applies to both public and private employers.

Chas.

sbb's wife would be covered because she has a CHL. However, I believe federal law prohibits firearms anywhere in a school zone unless the individual has a CHL. This means that the bill would not help those teachers who don't have a CHL as they would still be bound by the feds. Is this correct?

I thought that the bill was geared towards CHL carriers only and NOT Motorist Protection Act carriers. R I kunfuzed?

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

sbb wrote:I would hope that this proposed legislation would also apply to educators. Currently my spouse is prohibited from daily carry due to her employment contract with a large Houston area ISD. Even though she has a CHL the employment contract supersedes her rights. I know that I do not want her working in her High School's location without the ability to have access to her handgun on the way to and from campus.

If passed in its current forum, your wife would be protected, as it applies to both public and private employers.

Chas.

sbb's wife would be covered because she has a CHL. However, I believe federal law prohibits firearms anywhere in a school zone unless the individual has a CHL. This means that the bill would not help those teachers who don't have a CHL as they would still be bound by the feds. Is this correct?

This is technically correct, but the reenacted federal gun-free school zone statute has not been tested in court. The first version was ruled unconstitutional because it didn't contain language triggering the Commerce Clause. The new one does.

To my knowledge, the new statute hasn't been used to prosecute anyone. I think the feds are worried that this version will be struck down as well. I'm not that optimistic.

Chas.