Status of Campus Carry and Parking Lot (in layman's terms)

[RPB]

The bill has passed the House overwhelmingly so the bill would have gone to the Governor for his signature. Done deal.

Campus Carry didn't pass the House. It was stuck in the Calendar Committee. Even if it had passed the Senate, I'm convinced Calendars still would have killed it by not letting it come to a vote on the House floor. The same thing they did in the last session.

Brian

We need different ppl on Calendars who will care more about personal safety than cockfighting, horny toads (reptiles) and catfish.

[Rhino1]

Sorry, I guess I meant that there was more than adequate support in the House. My point was that incomprehensible rules like the Senate Blocker Bill requiring 2/3 vote was preventing the will of the majority from prevailing. The same thing applies in the House with the Calendars committee. Bottom line, we need to amend the Blocker Bill and we need a new Speaker of the House next session.

[Domineaux]

Parking Lot Bill past house and senate and on the way to the Gov!

[rm9792]

What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

[apostate]

Sorry, I guess I meant that there was more than adequate support in the House.

I strongly disagree. Had there been even adequate support, HB 750 would have been scheduled and passed the House. (Had there been good support for campus safety in the House, HB 750 would have sailed through the House two months ago.)

As it stands, the House intentionally or knowingly failed to pass HB 750. They also killed the campus safety amendment to SB 1581. Thus, I consider the support in the House woefully inadequate (and that's being kind.)

[apostate]

What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DallasCHL]

What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

[Paragrouper]

What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders.

That is not accurate.

"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."

This applies to anyone who lawfully possesses a firearm, not just CHL's. There is an exception for property:

"owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner with an air authorization under
Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or
transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials"

That is limited to CHL's only. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00321F.htm

[DallasCHL]

What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders.

That is not accurate.

"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."

I understand that you're reading the first part of the section as reciting a list with three elements. That's one of at least two possible was to read the law, which is why I said it's badly written. But the way you're reading it, "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" is redundant or meaningless. A CHL holder lawfully possessing a firearm is included in the second or the three supposed groups (unless you think it refers to CHL holders who are unlawfully possessing a firearm?). This violates the basic principle of statutory construction, which is that all the words have meaning.

As I said, whoever wrote the House committee report read it to apply only to CHL holders. The section applies to CHL holders who are otherwise (i.e., notwithstanding this section) lawfully possessing a firearm or ammunition.

[Charles L. Cotton]

What all does the parking lot bill encompass?

Employees only. Locked, privately owned motor vehicles in parking area.
Some exceptions: preK-12 schools, company vehicles, chemical plants.
Complete text: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/82ccrs/sb0321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders.

That is not accurate.

"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."

I understand that you're reading the first part of the section as reciting a list with three elements. That's one of at least two possible was to read the law, which is why I said it's badly written. But the way you're reading it, "who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code" is redundant or meaningless. A CHL holder lawfully possessing a firearm is included in the second or the three supposed groups (unless you think it refers to CHL holders who are unlawfully possessing a firearm?). This violates the basic principle of statutory construction, which is that all the words have meaning.

As I said, whoever wrote the House committee report read it to apply only to CHL holders. The section applies to CHL holders who are otherwise (i.e., notwithstanding this section) lawfully possessing a firearm or ammunition.

Thankfully, you are mistaken. The bill is not poorly written, it is perfectly clear and the conference committee report does not mean what you read into it. There is a reason it was written that way, and the timing thereof, but I'm not going into that. The simple fact is the comma means something, as does the inclusion of the word "otherwise," and the structure is commonly used in codes and statutes.

If your interpretation were accurate, then you would be correct in saying that the independent operative phrase "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm" would be redundant. Rules of statutory interpretation demand that redundancy be read out of a code or statute, if possible, and that certainly would apply here. More importantly, you are missing the significance of the word "otherwise" in the phrase "who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm." The word "otherwise" distinguishes the phrase from the prior phrase that refers to CHL's.

The protection of SB321 applies to anyone and everyone who legally possess firearms. The only exceptions are chemical manufacturers and refineries where the protection applies only to CHLs. You are correct that SB321 applies only to employees.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

Where did you find the quoted language? The latest analysis is the one for the House version of the Bill and it is the same on this point as is the Senate analysis. You can find both here. The conference report does not contain this language, nor do I see it in the comparison. It can be found here.

Chas.

[DallasCHL]

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

Where did you find the quoted language? The latest analysis is the one for the House version of the Bill and it is the same on this point as is the Senate analysis. You can find both here. The conference report does not contain this language, nor do I see it in the comparison. It can be found here.

Chas.

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report. You can find the analysis from the House committee report, which contains the quoted language, here.

All that matters is what the courts think it means, and it is ambiguous enough that if I didn't have a CHL I wouldn't test it. If the law is supposed to apply to everyone lawfully possessing a firearm, I see no reason for the CHL language in 56.021.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Employees only and I believe CHLs only. The bill is badly written, but IMO the most reasonable interpretation is that it only applies to CHL holders. Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:

"C.S.S.B. 321 amends the Labor Code to prohibit a public or private employer from prohibiting an employee who holds a concealed handgun license issued by the Department of Public Safety and who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is lawfully authorized to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees."

Hopefully there's a way to fix this before 2013.

Where did you find the quoted language? The latest analysis is the one for the House version of the Bill and it is the same on this point as is the Senate analysis. You can find both here. The conference report does not contain this language, nor do I see it in the comparison. It can be found here.

Chas.

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report.

I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee report that became the final version of SB766. Also, you missed different verbiage that appears on the first page of the analysis that reads differently; "C.S.S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions. There is no mention of CHL's here.

All that matters is what the courts think it means, and it is ambiguous enough that if I didn't have a CHL I wouldn't test it. If the law is supposed to apply to everyone lawfully possessing a firearm, I see no reason for the CHL language in 56.021.

There's nothing ambiguous about SB321. It's written precisely how bills/codes are written. You continue to ignore the importance of the distinguishing term "otherwise" and your interpretation could only have merit of that word were not in the bill. (That's precisely why it was included.)

It's also important to note that Texas Labor Code §52.062(a)(2)(F) treats chemical manufacturing plants and refineries differently in that it limits the protection of the bill to CHL's. If your interpretation of SB321 was correct and that none of its provisions apply to anyone other than CHL's, then §52.062(a)(2)(F) would be meaningless.

Chas.

[DallasCHL]

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report.

I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee report that became the final version of SB766. Also, you missed different verbiage that appears on the first page of the analysis that reads differently; "C.S.S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions. There is no mention of CHL's here.

I didn't miss any verbiage. The two statements give different impressions, but do not directly conflict. As I said, the language that I posted is in the House committee report. You correctly point out that the conference committee report is silent, thus there is no conflict between the two. The relevant language in the bill did not change. The analysis I posted is part of the legislative history, and may be considered by a court interpreting this law. I don't know if there is testimony or debate that clarifies this point; I hope there is. You may argue that the law is clear and whoever wrote the report just read it wrong. I don't know if that's a winning argument, but as I said, I wouldn't be willing to risk it.

I understand that you are personally invested in this. I'm not the only person I have spoken to who sees the ambiguity. Even if you think the bill is crystal clear, you will still have to contend with the legislative history.

There's nothing ambiguous about SB321. It's written precisely how bills/codes are written. You continue to ignore the importance of the distinguishing term "otherwise" and your interpretation could only have merit of that word were not in the bill. (That's precisely why it was included.)

I'm not ignoring anything. I've read every word. Many laws are ambiguous.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There is no analysis attached to the conference committee report.

I know there isn't; that's what I was pointing out to you in response to your statement that "Whoever drafted the House committee report apparently agrees:". The analysis you quoted has nothing to do with the committee report that became the final version of SB766. Also, you missed different verbiage that appears on the first page of the analysis that reads differently; "C.S.S.B. 321 seeks to prohibit an employer from prohibiting an employee who lawfully possesses a firearm or ammunition from transporting or storing the firearm or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking area the employer provides for employees, with certain exceptions. There is no mention of CHL's here.

I didn't miss any verbiage. The two statements give different impressions, but do not directly conflict. As I said, the language that I posted is in the House committee report. You correctly point out that the conference committee report is silent, thus there is no conflict between the two. The relevant language in the bill did not change. The analysis I posted is part of the legislative history, and may be considered by a court interpreting this law. I don't know if there is testimony or debate that clarifies this point; I hope there is. You may argue that the law is clear and whoever wrote the report just read it wrong. I don't know if that's a winning argument, but as I said, I wouldn't be willing to risk it.

I understand that you are personally invested in this. I'm not the only person I have spoken to who sees the ambiguity. Even if you think the bill is crystal clear, you will still have to contend with the legislative history.

There's nothing ambiguous about SB321. It's written precisely how bills/codes are written. You continue to ignore the importance of the distinguishing term "otherwise" and your interpretation could only have merit of that word were not in the bill. (That's precisely why it was included.)

I'm not ignoring anything. I've read every word. Many laws are ambiguous.

I give up, other than saying you don't know how to read statutes and you most certainly are ignoring the word "otherwise." The use of that term was specifically to distinguish those gun owners from CHL's. Tell us your version as to why "otherwise" is included in the phrase following the CHL portion.

Believe what you will, but you're not going to use TexasCHLforum as a vehicle to deter millions of Texans from enjoying the protections of SB321.

Chas.