HB 695

[E.Marquez]

Did I miss this bill being discussed?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
HB 695

Chas.. TSRA opinion?

Thanks

[E.Marquez]

Ahh, I see it was just filed yesterday
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB695" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like what i think it says... but would love to hear the TSRA opinion, as I'm not educated and experienced enough on the whole process to foresee unintended consequences.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This Bill by Springer (R, A+) does two things. First, hospitals and nursing homes will no longer be statutory off-limits. TPC §30.06 cannot be used to render public hospitals or nursing homes off-limits and private facilities must station an armed guard in uniform at every entrance in order to use §30.06 to bar armed CHLs.

If Springer's HB308 passes, then the first part of the HB695 becomes moot. However, requiring armed guards at private facilities would still be very useful.

Rep. Springer is clearly a strong supporter of Texas gun owners.
Chas.

[E.Marquez]

Chas, thanks

Makes sense

[MeMelYup]

Clarification please. HB 695, pg 2, (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the licenseholder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity, including a public hospital or nursing home, and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Does this mean state or county hospitals and nursing homes or does it include private hospitals (ie. Seaton, Scott and White, Hillcrest, etc.) and nursing homes?

I know and everyone else should that this will not include VA as it is Federal.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Clarification please. HB 695, pg 2, (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that the property on which the licenseholder carries a handgun is owned or leased by a governmental entity, including a public hospital or nursing home, and is not a premises or other place on which the license holder is prohibited from carrying the handgun under Section 46.03 or 46.035.

Does this mean state or county hospitals and nursing homes or does it include private hospitals (ie. Seaton, Scott and White, Hillcrest, etc.) and nursing homes?

I know and everyone else should that this will not include VA as it is Federal.

It means state, county and city hospitals and nursing homes could not be made off limits by using a 30.06 sign.

Chas.

[SewTexas]

but.....
most hospitals aren't run by the "public" they are "Central Methodist" or "Waco Seton" or "Northwest Baptist" (examples only, not real names, I don't think)
As for retirement and nursing homes, those are also privately owned, not public. So I'm not really sure that this is going to affect much. I really don't like the idea of spending time and effort on a bill that will impact a very few businesses.

[mr1337]

Excellent bill! Most (if not all) hospitals in Austin are posted, and I hated leaving my gun at home when my wife went into surgery last year.

You can't always choose your hospital, either. Your health insurance (now required by law under threat of tax penalties) often determines which one you can go to based on their network coverage. And we all know about the hospital shootings that have happened elsewhere in the country.

My next question is this, what good are security guards if:

1. They are unarmed (as most tend to be for cost and insurance reasons) [edit] Ignore this point, I just read the bill, and it says the security guard must be carrying a weapon in plain view
   and
2. There are no metal detectors to ensure no one gets past with something they shouldn't have?

I think permanently affixed metal detectors should be a requirement as well. What is to stop someone from entering with a concealed handgun, walking straight past the guards and into a supposedly sterile area? I'm okay with disarming in places where everyone is checked, but as it reads, only having security guards would simply create the illusion of security. I'm sure hospitals would not be able to put metal detectors in due to technical reasons (most entrances are double sliding doors) and cost reasons. And I'm sure the legislature would say it creates too big of a burden on hospitals that wish to ban concealed carry, but anything less isn't going to stop someone from shooting up a hospital.

[mr1337]

but.....
most hospitals aren't run by the "public" they are "Central Methodist" or "Waco Seton" or "Northwest Baptist" (examples only, not real names, I don't think)
As for retirement and nursing homes, those are also privately owned, not public. So I'm not really sure that this is going to affect much. I really don't like the idea of spending time and effort on a bill that will impact a very few businesses.

The bill says private hospitals are prohibited from posting 30.06 signs unless they have security guards at each entrance.

Public hospitals are prohibited from posting 30.06 at all.

[CleverNickname]

I'd prefer a bill that would require any private business posting 30.06 be required to have armed guards, and metal detectors too, but this is a start I guess.

[SewTexas]

but.....
most hospitals aren't run by the "public" they are "Central Methodist" or "Waco Seton" or "Northwest Baptist" (examples only, not real names, I don't think)
As for retirement and nursing homes, those are also privately owned, not public. So I'm not really sure that this is going to affect much. I really don't like the idea of spending time and effort on a bill that will impact a very few businesses.

The bill says private hospitals are prohibited from posting 30.06 signs unless they have security guards at each entrance.

Public hospitals are prohibited from posting 30.06 at all.

gotcha, too many negatives. thank you.

in that case, the hospitals will just add $50 a day to everyone's bills as a "security fee" add a couple more security guards and rake in extra $
the retirement homes are already making a fortune, and they'll do the same thing as the hospitals.

and the security lobby will be thrilled!

[Charles L. Cotton]

but.....
most hospitals aren't run by the "public" they are "Central Methodist" or "Waco Seton" or "Northwest Baptist" (examples only, not real names, I don't think)
As for retirement and nursing homes, those are also privately owned, not public. So I'm not really sure that this is going to affect much. I really don't like the idea of spending time and effort on a bill that will impact a very few businesses.

The bill says private hospitals are prohibited from posting 30.06 signs unless they have security guards at each entrance.

Public hospitals are prohibited from posting 30.06 at all.

gotcha, too many negatives. thank you.

in that case, the hospitals will just add $50 a day to everyone's bills as a "security fee" add a couple more security guards and rake in extra $
the retirement homes are already making a fortune, and they'll do the same thing as the hospitals.

and the security lobby will be thrilled!

Not two security guards, one for every single door. That will be cost prohibitive and most hospitals will not post 30.06 signs.

Chas.

[srothstein]

but.....
most hospitals aren't run by the "public" they are "Central Methodist" or "Waco Seton" or "Northwest Baptist" (examples only, not real names, I don't think)
As for retirement and nursing homes, those are also privately owned, not public. So I'm not really sure that this is going to affect much. I really don't like the idea of spending time and effort on a bill that will impact a very few businesses.

It does not have to be run by the public. Since this bill bases it on the current 30.06, if the hospital is owned or leased by a governmental agency, it is public and forbidden to post. Just to be safe, I looked up my local hospital, Seton Edgar B. Davis. The hospital is run and managed by Seton Health Care, but the land and building are owned by the City of Luling. They would not be able to post, which I would really appreciate. I guess the 30.06 is debatable now (but the signs do make charges under 46.035 viable), but this would make it much clearer.

[Liberty]

It looks to me as though if this bill is passed facitys such as UTMB would be good to carry in.

[C-dub]

I thought, in theory, at least that state, county, and city hospitals that post 30.06 signs were already unenforceable. They still post them anyway and often claim it is because they are also educational institutions. Some are both. Will a situation like this be covered by this bill?