Texans: Pending legislation alert!

[Texan Scott]

For those of y'all who aren't NRA members:
(I'm not trying to recruit, only inform!)

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...sive-number-of-prosecond-amendment-bills.aspx

TEXAS HOUSE GIVES FINAL APPROVAL TO IMPRESSIVE NUMBER OF PRO SECOND AMENDMENT BILLS.

Short version:

Approved Senate Bills 299 (protection for inadvertent display of a CHL handgun) and 864 (cuts CHL classtime requirements in half) have passed the House as well and now go to Governor Perry for signature. Hooray!

SEVEN OTHER HOUSE APPROVED BILLS ARE ADVANCING TO THE SENATE! They are:

HB 508- imposes civil fines on state agencies, cities or counties which improperly post 30.06 signs prohibiting CHLs.

HB 972- combined campus carry and campus parking lot law.

HB 48- eliminates CHL continuing education course and handgun proficiency demonstration requirements for renewals.

HB 485- reduces original and renewal CHL fees for honorably discharged veterans, as well as reserve and part-time peace officers, to $25.

HB 698- improved DPS fingerprinting requirements for CHLs im rural and remote areas.

HB 1076- would prohibit any state agency or agency employee from enforcing a federal statute or regulation on firearms or firearm accessories that does not exist under Texas state law. Any agency that violated this prohibition would not be allowed to receive state grant funds for the fiscal year in which a violation occurred.

HB 1349- prohibits DPS from requesting or requiring that an applicant’s social security number be disclosed during the process of obtaining an original or renewal Concealed Handgun License. This may prove especially important to keep this information from being illegally released to media or abusive federal agencies. Lawful or not, they can't give away what they don't have.

HB 1421- allows seized firearms to be sold to FFLs.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR TEXAS STATE SENATOR AMD TELL THEM WE EXPECT THEIR SUPPORT FOR THESE BILLS!

 

[Texan Scott]

This is the body of the letter I sent. If you wish, please feel free to copy, modify, or use it however you find convenient.

As your constituent and a law-abiding Texas gun owner, I am very excited to see SEVEN pro-gun bills advancing from the House to the Senate for a vote:

HB 508- imposes civil fines on state agencies, cities or counties which improperly post 30.06 signs prohibiting CHLs.

HB 972- combined campus carry and campus parking lot law.

HB 48- eliminates continuing education course and handgun proficiency demonstration requirements for CHL renewals.

HB 485- reduces original and renewal CHL fees for honorably discharged veterans, as well as reserve and part-time peace officers, to $25.

HB 698- improved DPS fingerprinting requirements for CHLs im rural and remote areas.

HB 1076- would prohibit any state agency or employee from enforcing a federal statute or regulation on firearms or firearm accessories that does not exist under Texas state law.

HB 1349- prohibits DPS from requesting or requiring an applicant’s social security number during the process of obtaining an original or renewal CHL.

HB 1421- allows seized firearms to be sold to FFLs.

I am urging you to PLEASE SUPPORT THESE BILLS WITH YOUR VOTE, YOUR VOICE, AND YOUR INFLUENCE.

 

[91/30]

Well I'm glad I live in TX.

 

[zmoore1991]

I'd like to point out that there are actually several "An Act Relating to the Carrying of a Concealed Weapon at in Institution of Higher Learning" bills that have been introduced, but the HB 972 has made it the furthest. And after reading through them all, it is definitely the most well written of them.

Edit: There may be (and probably are) multiples of all of these bills, but being a student, I was mostly interested in the Campus Carry bills when I got on the Texas legislature's website the other day.

 

[DNS]

They're now working on senate bills but I did call to give support, particularly to h.b. 700, the open carry. I don't have high hopes though.

 

[EmbarkChief]

I'm all for pro-2nd amendment legislation but to be honest I personally feel like a few of these are moving in the wrong direction. For example:

HB 48- eliminates CHL continuing education course and handgun proficiency demonstration requirements for renewals

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but in my last 2 renewal classes there were plenty of people who needed some extra range time.

This one really makes me uncomfortable:

864 cuts CHL classtime requirements in half

I'll be honest, I think the more training the better. I've been to 3 CHL classes now, and I can't see how less training is going to be helpful in any way. If anything we need to increase the training time and make the range portion more difficult. A good number of individuals in these classes are at the very low end of firearm handling experience and we are about to turn them loose in the wild with a CHL... License holders have a pretty good reputation so far, I'd hate to see that change.

 

[Texan Scott]

I totally understand, and on the whole, I think I'd rather be content to have your support on 5 than get into arguments over 2.

 

[Texan Scott]

As a reminder y'all ... you don't need to call your HOUSE reps about these... they've passed the House and are moving to the Senate. Call/ email your SENATORS please!

 

[GEM]

The Senate has been the block before on campus carry. Is there any real reason to think it won't happen again? That's the rumor.

Not that we didn't give it our best. We will see again.

 

[Texan Scott]

Sadly, HB 700, open carry, was heard in committee on 3/14, but not voted on (denied a committee vote, ensuring it will die in committee without an up or down vote before the House).

This is a big reason that we like to see companion bills introduced in both houses of Congress.

And yeah GEM, you'll notice the two bills that sailed through to Governor Perry's desk ORIGINATED in the Senate with companion bills as backup in the House. As soon as they passed in the Senate, the House bills were dropped and the Senate bills adopted.

This "Senate block" theory/ problem just makes it THAT MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to have as MANY people as possible pounding on their Senators' desks right now.

 

[Ryanxia]

I'm all for pro-2nd amendment legislation but to be honest I personally feel like a few of these are moving in the wrong direction. For example:

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but in my last 2 renewal classes there were plenty of people who needed some extra range time.

This one really makes me uncomfortable:


I'll be honest, I think the more training the better. I've been to 3 CHL classes now, and I can't see how less training is going to be helpful in any way. If anything we need to increase the training time and make the range portion more difficult. A good number of individuals in these classes are at the very low end of firearm handling experience and we are about to turn them loose in the wild with a CHL... License holders have a pretty good reputation so far, I'd hate to see that change.

So only those that are expert marksmen should be allowed to protect themselves?
If they can stick the barrel into someone's gut and pull the trigger then that's one scenario they'll live rather than die/be raped without a gun. That's good enough. Also in many situations just drawing on a bad guy will send him running (not that you should count on that).

It's a Constitutional Right, every free man (and woman) should be allowed to carry openly or concealed without any restrictions. They SHOULD (but not because the government says so) get as much training as they can if they're going to carry.


Good luck getting those Bills finalized guys! Keep pushing!

 

[allaroundhunter]

Son of a gun.... I just finished sitting through my 10 hour CHL class...

 

[EmbarkChief]

So only those that are expert marksmen should be allowed to protect themselves?
If they can stick the barrel into someone's gut and pull the trigger then that's one scenario they'll live rather than die/be raped without a gun. That's good enough. Also in many situations just drawing on a bad guy will send him running (not that you should count on that).

Define "Expert Marksmen".

Its my belief that a CHL holder should be held to a high standard of marksmenship, I think the Air Marshall test would be a great example. Afterall, if a CHL gets into a bad situation where force is required there will probably be innocent bystanders around and no defined backstop. We all look at CHL issues differently, one person's worst nightmare is confronting a lone suspect in a dark alley, for others it might be trying to stop an active shooter situation in a crowded environment. Shooting at a black target on a white background in a well lit static environment is one thing, doing it with you heart blowing out your eardrums and adrenaline coursing through your body is something else.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Chief, if a CHL holder must use his or her firearm then I am not sure that there will be civilians around. Many assailants intentionally wait for their target to be alone to attack (especially if they are targeting a woman).

 

[EmbarkChief]

Allaroundhunter I'm not sure if bystanders will be there either. In fact I hope they will not be if that ever comes to pass.

 

[jfrey]

The object of the CHL course is to see if you can handle your weapon, not get in more range time for those of marginal ability. If you need additional shooting proficiency, you need to go to the range more and/or seek quality instruction. I've seen those folks in classes, but they pass the state requirements and go on. It doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling, but have you seen a lot of them drive too? As an alternative, I would like to see all CHL holders show proof every other year of firing at least 100 rounds to keep their license current. I can already hear the cries and screams now, but I think that is reasonable. Heck, I double that on any good Sunday afternoon.

As to continuing education, the laws change regularly and keeping up on the new ones would be a good idea, especially if you only have to do it every 10 years after your third renewal. Look at the law the way it was originally written. The statute has evolved considerably since then.

What I would personally like to see is the removal of the stupid SA and non SA designation on your license. What purpose does this serve? NONE.

 

[tarosean]

I'll be honest, I think the more training the better. I've been to 3 CHL classes now, and I can't see how less training is going to be helpful in any way. If anything we need to increase the training time and make the range portion more difficult. A good number of individuals in these classes are at the very low end of firearm handling experience and we are about to turn them loose in the wild with a CHL... License holders have a pretty good reputation so far, I'd hate to see that change.

Lets be honest though, 80% of the class is regurgitating the law and possible repercutions over and over again. Cutting that in half isn't likely to change ones decision to use their weapon.