Check out HB38 filed today

[2firfun50]

If you snickered at HB34 yesterday, you should get a good laugh out of this one. Text isn't posted yet, but looks like the infamous amendment that killed HB508.

[AEA]

Text is here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=HB38" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CWOOD]

If you snickered at HB34 yesterday, you should get a good laugh out of this one. Text isn't posted yet, but looks like the infamous amendment that killed HB508.

Actually, this does NOT have the really offensive language of Senator Carona's amendment to HB 508. It addresses carry by certain officers of the court but does NOT include state or federal legislators. I think that was the problem with the language that killed HB 508. I don't think many had much objection to prosecutors, judges and the like carrying. It was the special privilege carved out for the legislators themselves that caused the failure of HB 508.

[2firfun50]

If you snickered at HB34 yesterday, you should get a good laugh out of this one. Text isn't posted yet, but looks like the infamous amendment that killed HB508.

Actually, this does NOT have the really offensive language of Senator Carona's amendment to HB 508. It addresses carry by certain officers of the court but does NOT include state or federal legislators. I think that was the problem with the language that killed HB 508. I don't think many had much objection to prosecutors, judges and the like carrying. It was the special privilege carved out for the legislators themselves that caused the failure of HB 508.

I may be mistaken, but I think this is the language that got HB508 sent to conference committee. The committee was expected to strip off the amendment, but returned with the addition of members of the state and federal legislature. When it came back with even more special privileges, it was all over but the shouting.

It might has slid through without the add ons, but it didn't look like it would by the discussion I watched. You might want to take a look at the Journal discussion.

http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/H ... 2FINAL.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Pickett was going to kill HB508 with the original amendment with a point of order. It starts around page 236. Just do a find on HR 3009 and it will take you right to the discussion. A short but interesting read.

[Bladed]

If you snickered at HB34 yesterday, you should get a good laugh out of this one. Text isn't posted yet, but looks like the infamous amendment that killed HB508.

Actually, this does NOT have the really offensive language of Senator Carona's amendment to HB 508. It addresses carry by certain officers of the court but does NOT include state or federal legislators. I think that was the problem with the language that killed HB 508. I don't think many had much objection to prosecutors, judges and the like carrying. It was the special privilege carved out for the legislators themselves that caused the failure of HB 508.

I may be mistaken, but I think this is the language that got HB508 sent to conference committee. The committee was expected to strip off the amendment, but returned with the addition of members of the state and federal legislature. When it came back with even more special privileges, it was all over but the shouting.

It might has slid through without the add ons, but it didn't look like it would by the discussion I watched. You might want to take a look at the Journal discussion.

http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/H ... 2FINAL.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Pickett was going to kill HB508 with the original amendment with a point of order. It starts around page 236. Just do a find on HR 3009 and it will take you right to the discussion. A short but interesting read.

No, the amendment that got HB 508 sent to conference committee included legislators. When it came out out of conference committee, the bill still included legislators; though, the wording had been tweaked. Without special permission, a conference committee can't add wording that wasn't included in either the House or Senate version of the bill.

There has never been any widespread objection to special carry privileges for state or federal prosecutors, and I'd be very surprised to see such wording kill a bill.

[2firfun50]

I'm sure you folks are probably correct. I've just got a serious rash from losing HB508. That rash won't go away until the signs come down. It may take years for it to heal. No additional privileges for anyone until the signs come down.

[Tracker]

Is it possible that bills like legislatures ability to carry anywhere is an attempt at "bootstrapping" a change in CHL laws over more than one session? For example, I know Rep Springer, personally. He's goal is to get rid of many of these CHL restrictions. The good and bad of Texas legislature process is that it can be very difficult to get bills passed into law. I listened to the committee meeting online for HB3218 and HB3219. One of the arguments for allowing CHL holders to carry in hospitals related to nurses who work in rural hospitals that can't afford security personnel. With my wife being a nurse working in such a hospital, I can relate to that. In the hearing Drew argued for HB 3218 but if he couldn't get that then HB 3219 this session. When the next session comes around there would be a stronger argument for extending the law to all CHL holders. Hear is the committee meeting, slide the bar to 1: 23 http://www.house.state.tx.us/fx/av/comm ... 810420.ram" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JKTex]

There were flaws in that testimony for 3218 though. IN regards to public hospitals, personnel and the public are 2 different things, that was a big one. It made me wonder how well he really understands it.

[MeMelYup]

My problem is why should judges and prosecutors be afforded special priveledgs that a regular CHL is not allowed.

[Bladed]

My problem is why should judges and prosecutors be afforded special priveledgs that a regular CHL is not allowed.

Yeah, and why does the president get Secret Service protection but not the rest of us?

[jsenner]

Is it possible that bills like legislatures ability to carry anywhere is an attempt at "bootstrapping" a change in CHL laws over more than one session?

This is along the lines of my feeling on the matter. I have the apparently very minority opinion that killing this bill because of the extra privilege afforded legislators is really short sighted and, well, just not very smart.

it's not like legislators have ever had any cases where they gave themselves special permission and it won't be the last. why choose this particular case to suddenly get altruistic?

It just seems to me that it's quite selfish and short sighted to kill this bill for this reason. I have to wonder, if it was open carry would we all be sticking to our morals like this? what if it was one giant bill with all the things we wanted? would we then be willing to let it slide to make those gains?

I have a hard time believing it's going to be LESS difficult to start from scratch on this same battle again next session than it would be to bring up a "fixit" bill that extended existing privilege to citizens (not to mention that we would have the 30.06 positives in effect).

I think we're tossing the baby out with the bathwater when we get all worked up about what the amendment does. at the end of the day passing it would have resulted in 2 gains for concealed carry and opened the door for another whereas now we have zero gains and have to start over.

even ignoring all that, I think the attitude that is the given reason for killing the bill is a horribly dangerous one for future bills. Were I a democrat I would LOVE what has happened. Now, if there's a bill I don't like that Democrats can't stop, just add an amendment that does this and the Republicans will kill it for them. It seems to me losing this battle (accepting the bill and taking away the weapon to easily kill future bills) would have gone a lot further toward wining the war. To me, voting nay on this for the stated reason is not being able to see the forest for the trees.

I'm completely open (and even hoping) that there's an aspect to this that I'm missing. I would love to change my position on this and jump on the wagon. I can't given what I know at this point and would likely vote against people that voted against the bill for this reason.

[bizarrenormality]

If you snickered at HB34 yesterday, you should get a good laugh out of this one. Text isn't posted yet, but looks like the infamous amendment that killed HB508.

More and more, the Texas Legislature makes Tammany Hall look like paragons of equality and ethical behavior.

[Richard_B]

I suspect that what brought up the various amendments was increased security at courthouses where everyone was required to go through a metal detector and/or search. It is common knowledge than a number of judges used to carry something under their robes or in a holster out of sight under the bench. The hard reality is that some of them have been attacked in their courtrooms despite the presence of armed bailiffs.

This is a time for Gov. Perry to step up to the plate and put the substance of
HBs 3218, 508 and 700 on the call if he wants to be believed when he makes public statements.

...and just where are NRA and TSRA? They are sadly missing in action. I can't see how it would harm the associations to request that these matters be included in the call.

[baldeagle]

I suspect that what brought up the various amendments was increased security at courthouses where everyone was required to go through a metal detector and/or search. It is common knowledge than a number of judges used to carry something under their robes or in a holster out of sight under the bench. The hard reality is that some of them have been attacked in their courtrooms despite the presence of armed bailiffs.

This is a time for Gov. Perry to step up to the plate and put the substance of
HBs 3218, 508 and 700 on the call if he wants to be believed when he makes public statements.

...and just where are NRA and TSRA? They are sadly missing in action. I can't see how it would harm the associations to request that these matters be included in the call.

What makes you think they are missing in action?

[baldeagle]

Here's the bills related to concealed carry and firearms that have been introduced so far.

HB12 - Relating to certain firearms, firearm accessories, and firearm ammunition within the State of Texas; providing an exemption from federal regulation and providing penalties.

HB15 - Relating to the enforcement of certain federal laws regulating firearms, firearm accessories, and firearm ammunition within the State of Texas.

HB19 - Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education.

HB21 - Relating to the unlawful seizure of a firearm by a governmental officer or employee; providing penalties.

HB34 - Relating to authorizing certain attorneys representing the state to openly carry a handgun.

HB38 - Relating to the application of certain concealed handgun license laws to the attorney general and to assistant attorneys general, United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys, special assistant United States attorneys, and certain associate judges and other judicial personnel, and to the authority of those persons to carry certain weapons.

SB9 - Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of and certain other locations associated with institutions of higher education.

SB16 - Relating to certain offenses relating to carrying concealed handguns on property owned or leased by a governmental entity; providing a civil penalty.