[Charles Cotton]

This Senate Bill by Rodney Ellis was filed on 2/22/05 and has not yet been assigned to a committee. This is a very bad, very dangerous bill! It is grossly over-broad and the language used is far more dangerous than it appears on the surface.

In a rare response to a bill at this early stage, please contact your Senator and let him/her know that you strongly oppose this bill. Call, fax, send emails and if you're in Austin, visit their office and leave a message if they are out. There are only 31 Senators and we must let all of them know this bill must not pass.

At first glance, it appears that all Sen. Ellis is trying to do is keep guns of out of police stations, so the bill will get the support of people who routinely support our position on firearms. In truth, the bill is one of the more cunning traps I've seen in years, with a scope far broader than anyone other than it's author would imagine.

Please make those contacts now!

Regards,
Chas.

SB664 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00664&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

[TexasRifleman]

For those of us that don't see what you mean, could you be more specific?

Is it the part that includes any building used by police and you're worried that might include all city owned building?

Please elaborate on your worries.

[tyme]

Would it prohibit carry in DPS offices?

The State just recently usurped city governments' ability to post 30.06 signs on government buildings, right? This is a step backwards. Someone walking into a police station to cause trouble with a gun is going to do it whether or not it's legal...

"Peace officers," "special investigators," and "adjunct police officers" seems like it covers a lot of ground.

Seems like it would really cause problems for people in the legal profession and for private investigators (or wait, are they licensed under a different section of the TX code? I can't recall). And what about public attorneys? They're licensed under the same ccw statue as ordinary citizens, aren't they? And I would think a fair number of them carry.

I'd really like to know the politics behind this bill.

[client32]

Let me know if I understand this correctly.

This would allow a 30.06 sign to be legally posted on "any building or portion of a building containing offices used for the official business of peace officers, special investigators, or adjunct police officers."

As I understand it, a sign would have to be posted to restrict a conceal firearm in these areas. Does anyone else read it this way?

[Charles Cotton]

TexasSIGman:

Senator Ellis wants everyone to think SB664 will merely prevent CHL’s from carrying guns into police stations. The true scope of this bill is far broader. It will render off-limits entire buildings if any portion of it is used “for” official business of a covered agency or peace officer, not merely buildings used “by” peace officers.

For example, if an independent DNA testing lab doing DNA testing for a covered agency has a single office in a Houston high-rise office building, the entire building will be off-limits to CHL’s. I am sure Sen. Ellis will deny this, but that is how the bill is written.

Another example of the sneaky language is the inclusion of part of the definition of “premises” in the definition of “Law Enforcement Facility.” This does two things. First, it does not exclude parking garages, which are buildings. Secondly, if the definition of “premises” is ever changed (i.e. clarified), then this bill/statute will not be effected since “Law Enforcement Facility” will be separately defined.

The bill also includes within its scope literally every peace officer/agency listed in over 35 sections of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. For example, it will include railroad cops, investigators for the Texas Board of Medical Examiners and even certain “security” personnel!

When you combine the broad definition of “Law Enforcement Facility” with the huge number of agencies covered, the result will be a staggering increase in the number of off-limit locations in Texas.

Senator Ellis has always been vehemently opposed to the CHL statute and I’m sure it’s no accident that he is carrying this bill. In my opinion, this is the one of the most dangerous bills CHL’ers have faced in years. And one of the biggest dangers is the fact that it was crafted in such a way as to camouflage its true effect and many people may support it erroneously thinking it merely covers police stations and sheriff’s offices.

Regards,
Chas.

[beerslurpy]

Guys the problem is the hilarious definition of "law enforcement facilitiy" which will obviously include almost every medium sized government building (how many do you know that contain tax collection/utilities/etc/etc/sheriff station). You walk into to register your car or pay your property taxes and zing the entire facility is a "law enforcement facility" and you are a felon (not sure what an "offense" is, might just be a fine).

Actually in Florida there are a number of gas stations that serve as FHP stations. They only have a teensy little table set up so that officers can come in and have a cup of coffee and a snack, but that fits the definition of law enforcement facility in this law. It is a very stupid law (unless you hate gun owners and are trying to screw them).

[RRTX]

Last I checked, police stations were already off limits because I have yet to ever see one that did not contain at least one cell for holding prisoners. This sounds like an attempt to usurp SB501.

[TexasRifleman]

Thanks, I see what you are saying now. I didn't read much into it because in the small town I am in, the police department shares a building with the courts so it's already posted.

Sounds like an unneccesary bill at best and a far too overreaching one at worst. Emails off to the politicos today.

Thanks for the info.

[roo_ster]

I emailed to following to my state senator:

Senator Carona:

The Senate Bill by Rodney Ellis filed on 2/22/05, SB 664, is a threat to our our Second Amendment rights as Americans and to Texas CHL holders in particular.

Text of bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00664&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

Senator, I urge you to do whatever is in your power to do to scuttle this piece of legislation. It is overly broad and can be used to dramatically restrict where CHL holders may carry.

Of particular note is this passage:
****
(7) on the premises of a law enforcement facility
...
"Law enforcement facility" includes any building
or portion of a building containing offices used for the official business of peace officers, special investigators, or adjunct police officers as defined by Article 2.12, 2.121, 2.122, 2.123, or 2.124, Code of Criminal Procedure.
****

Thus, any *privately* held building that leases office space to any *private* company that does any of the "official business of peace officers" would be subject.

I can think of many ways in which this would be abused. Does a private medical testing facility process urinalyses for aspiring law enforcement officers? How about the offices of an IT company contracted to provide support or applications for the county jail or courthouse? Perhaps a strip mall contains a police sub-station in one small portion? All those offices process "official business of peace officers" and the buildings will have become "Law enforcement facilities" by way of that business being processed.

I would appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Jason Ruser

Thanks for the heads-up, Charles Cotton.

[Charles Cotton]

Thanks for the response guys. One of the comments I hear often from our opposition in Austin and in Washington is that "you guys can turn on the faxes, telephones and emails like no one else!" It's not meant as a compliment, but I sure take it that way! Take a bow fellows, you are our strength.

Regards,
Chas.

[Jeff OTMG]

This is a bad deal. The airports in Texas had to take down their signs, since each airport has an airport police office that would make all airport buildings off limits. It is the airport terminals that they are after. CHL holders might try to hijack planes.