Priorities for 2019 legislative session

[mloamiller]

My thoughts for those things that would have the most significant impact on my day-to-day carry, in priority order:

• 1.Expand the protection that prohibits a person from being fired just for having a gun in their locked car to also cover licensed carry on the premises, even while at work. In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work.
• 2. Remove the loophole in 411.209 that excludes third-parties leasing government-owned facilities from the fines associated with prohibiting concealed or open carry in those facilities. Either the third-party should be subject to the same fines, or the governmental entity that owns the facility would still be subject to the same fines, even if the third-party is preventing licensed carry. Licensed carriers need something with substance to go after these third-parties that are deliberately going against the legislative intent of 411.209, and the governmental entities that allow them to do so.
• 3. Remove all of the so-called "gun free zones" defined in 46.03 and 46.035.

Those would have a huge impact on me personally, and my ability to literally carry "everywhere, all the time."

[Texas1836]

Let’s think even bigger and focus on removing the ability of cities, counties and all other public entities to hire lobbyists. Texas is one of the few states that allows this. I doubt there isn’t one instance where they aren’t lobbying against our 2nd amendment rights.

[Texas1836]

https://empowertexans.com/around-texas/ ... vernments/

“Over half of registered lobbyists in Texas are hired to defend the power of local governments, paid for with taxpayer money. It makes perfect sense then, that State Sen. Konni Burton’s (R-Colleyville) effort (SB 1862) to reform the government lobbying structure was met with harsh opposition by—you guessed it—local governments.”

[crazy2medic]

Clarify and improve Fines for Signs, language needs to define only the court room and it's associated offices may prohibit a firearm, allow not only the AG office to impose a fine but allow a wronged citizen to sue not only the Govt but also those individuals that make the decision to prohibit LTCs from carrying on govt property! Increase the amount of the fines!

[bblhd672]

Do not pass any legislation that will make the gun control crowd claim a victory in Texas. Even if the legislation is part of the governor’s school safety agenda. No new infringements.

[Charles L. Cotton]

1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.

Chas.

[PriestTheRunner]

1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.

Biggest ones for me:
1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs, including courtrooms and courthouses. LTC's have proven themselves law abiding. The LTC's gun is not the gun you need to worry about. Require federal courtrooms to have real security (metal detectors) and a place to secure firearms temporarily.
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting Non-Profit Religious Institutions (Churches) from the Texas Private Security Act. Define volunteer as non paid person or a person whose function does not explicitly require security duties (IE- pastors) and receives pay for other services only.
3. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.
4. Remove the ability for cities and townships to hire lobbyists.

Fantastic ideas / options:
5. Ban the increase of insurance premiums due to the allowing or not-allowing of LTC's on the premises. Having 30.06 or 30.07 up (or not) should have no affect on premiums. Legislate that insurance may not require 30.06 or 30.07 postage.
6. Require that employers who do not post 30.06 and 30.07 publicly may not prohibit 30.06 and 30.07 for employees (IE, if you don't exclude the public LTC's, you may not exclude employee LTCs).
7. Create blanket protections for employers if a person uses a firearm in defense of self or others, and such an action was not within the employee's scope of work or job duties, then the employer is exempt and protected from litigation. IE- a person's defense of themselves cannot open the business to a lawsuit.
8. Clarify concealed
9. Clarify brandishing and specify 'legal brandishing' against threats of violence

10. Fix this: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/06/off-du ... z5ImZe1SEG

[C-dub]

1. Remove all off-limits areas for LTCs;
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting schools and students from the Texas Private Security Act.

[*]2. Remove the loophole in 411.209 that excludes third-parties leasing government-owned facilities from the fines associated with prohibiting concealed or open carry in those facilities. Either the third-party should be subject to the same fines, or the governmental entity that owns the facility would still be subject to the same fines, even if the third-party is preventing licensed carry. Licensed carriers need something with substance to go after these third-parties that are deliberately going against the legislative intent of 411.209, and the governmental entities that allow them to do so.

[*]3. Remove all of the so-called "gun free zones" defined in 46.03 and 46.035.[/list]

I think these should about cover it.

I'm not sure where it would fall under, but graduation ceremonies are places with large groups that keep me on high alert. So far, I've been to five high school graduations for nieces and nephews that were all held at a local university. Even with campus carry in effect the sports auditorium where these have been held is off limits. My daughter's will probably be the last high school graduation I'll attend in 2020 and then probably her college graduation several years later. What would it take for me, an LTC, to carry at such an event?

[PriestTheRunner]

> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that I also strongly believe in private property rights. I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

What about the insurance and protection ideas I posted above?

[flechero]

> In other words, prevent employers from prohibiting licensed carry by their employees while at work

I don't agree with this one just for the fact that . I, as an employer, should be able to have as much as say as possible in what my employees wear and do while on the job.

If my employee doesn't like my decisions as the business owner and person paying their salary, they do not have to be my employee.

I also strongly believe in private property rights... but as an employee, you have invited them (bribed actually, with cash) onto your business property. Do you provide your employees armed security? A secure path between desk and parking area? Do you carry? Why would you hire someone (after a probationary period) that you can't trust?

It's already illegal to use said firearm on your property except in a case of self defense. It's like banning unopened containers in a motor vehicle. Because, well- you know... they could spontaneously open and pour themselves down your throat!

Property rights arguments for businesses are weakened in my opinion since they generally serve or sell to the public, in some capacity... in those cases, they should be held to the same restrictions as the general public.

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . .
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting Non-Profit Religious Institutions (Churches) from the Texas Private Security Act. Define volunteer as non paid person or a person whose function does not explicitly require security duties (IE- pastors) and receives pay for other services only.

We did this in 2017, except "volunteer" was not defined. An employee whose job duties are not primarily security-related can carry.

Chas.

[crazy2medic]

. . .
2. Exempt volunteer security personnel protecting Non-Profit Religious Institutions (Churches) from the Texas Private Security Act. Define volunteer as non paid person or a person whose function does not explicitly require security duties (IE- pastors) and receives pay for other services only.

We did this in 2017, except "volunteer" was not defined. An employee whose job duties are not primarily security-related can carry.

Chas.

Every Sunday since November I have sat in the back of a small church and watch the door so that others can worship in peace! Befoe this was passed what I do would have been against the law! Thanks Charles, this allows me to use my knowledge and training to protect those that would otherwise not be able to afford protection!