Texas - Proposed Legislation Alert


PDA






rbernie
February 21, 2007, 09:40 AM
From TSRA:
TSRA Members, Family and Friends:

HB 220 by Rep. Phil King, HB 511 by Rep. David Farabee, and HB 992 by Rep. Patrick Rose would allow a CHL to have their handgun in their private locked vehicle on their employer's parking lot.

HB 220, HB 511, and HB 992 are expected to be heard in House Law Enforcement Committee next Monday, February 26.
We need your help!

We hope to find a few impact witnesses willing to come to Austin and testify in committee to support these important TSRA-backed bills.
We also need written testimony to create a support document, please include your complete contact information on your statement. The Texas Legislature needs to hear from you!

To email written testimony or to discuss being a witness contact Alice Tripp, Legislative Director, Texas State Rifle Association at: agtripp@aol.com

Do it NOW!

If you enjoyed reading about "Texas - Proposed Legislation Alert" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Thain
February 21, 2007, 10:42 AM
Here you go Texas, just have your government call my government:


SELF-DEFENSE ACT
Act 309 of 2006
AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

780.971 Short title.

1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "self-defense act".

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

2.
(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

780.973 Duty to retreat; effect of act on common law.

3.
Except as provided in section 2, this act does not modify the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006 regarding the duty to retreat before using deadly force or force other than deadly force.

780.974 Right to use deadly force; effect of act on common law.

4.
This act does not diminish an individual's right to use deadly force or force other than deadly force in self-defense or defense of another individual as provided by the common law of this state in existence on October 1, 2006.

History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

2007 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Rendered 2/21/2007 09:26:14
Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 682 of 2006
2007 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

ball3006
February 21, 2007, 12:39 PM
are good but the company I work for states that even though it is legal, if you have a weapon in your car on our grounds, you will be fired, period.....Good thing I am retiring in one year, 43 days.....chris3

Rob G
February 21, 2007, 01:07 PM
Both of these law proposals....are good but the company I work for states that even though it is legal, if you have a weapon in your car on our grounds, you will be fired, period

These "paking lot" laws first cropped up in Oklahoma not too long ago in response to several employees who's company (I don't remember which) fired them for having legally owned and lawfully carried firearms locked in their cars on company property. They are specifically designed to address your employer's regulations on the matter. In other words, if they pass, your employer would be in violation of the law if they fired you for having your gun in your car, regardless of what company policy might be. I'm not sure if violating that law opens them up to any criminal prosecution (I sincerely doubt it) but it would open them up to civil penalties.

Personally I can't wait for this to pass. My employer has the same policy and if these pass then on the first day they're active I'm going to print out a complete copy of the law and put it on my boss's desk. :neener:

rbernie
February 21, 2007, 01:42 PM
We've talked about this issue here a whole bunch in the last couple of years, and I'm still I dunno if I like these laws or not.

In my mind, they tread on private property rights something fierce, by appearing to stipulate that some part of private property isn't exactly private and has quasi-public status. While this particular flavor of that attitude works in our favor, that sounds like a very slippery slope in general and I'd hate to see where it could possibly wind up (e.g. no open carry on private land).

Deavis
February 21, 2007, 02:34 PM
In my mind, they tread on private property rights something fierce, by appearing to stipulate that some part of private property isn't exactly private and has quasi-public status. While this particular flavor of that attitude works in our favor, that sounds like a very slippery slope in general and I'd hate to see where it could possibly wind up (e.g. no open carry on private land).


I agree that property rights should not be eroded. In this case, I think they are strengthened. My car is my property. Everything within it is mine and I am the sovereign. The moment I step out, I'm on their property and need to respect their rules. The moment I get into my car, they need to respect that it is my domain. If my carry weapon is locked in my car, that is my business, not theirs.

Sam Adams
February 21, 2007, 07:11 PM
I'll 2nd what Deavis said.

In addition, I don't like the implication that a private company can effectively override state law and your right to self defense. Texas law allows any adult who isn't a criminal or isn't engaging in a crime (and I'm simplifying here) to carry a handgun concealed in their vehicle - with or without having a CHL. So how is one to protect one's self on the way to and from work if you cannot leave your firearm locked in the car in between those trips? No one is trying to force companies to allow workers to carry on premises - but, again, YOUR car is YOUR personal property, not that of the business.

BTW, answer me this: can a private company enslave someone on its property? Can it inflict cruel and unusual punishment upon them on its property? Can it say "No Blacks, Jews or Dogs allowed" on its property? I think not - because basic rights are protected against private action in many cases. Self-defense is the single most basic human right - if "they" can ban it, they can ban anything.

If you enjoyed reading about "Texas - Proposed Legislation Alert" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!