Texas House Bill 2295 - Bad

[Charles Cotton]

Texas House Bill 2295

This is a modified reprint of a post on TexasCHLforum.com

HB 2295 was filed on 3/8/04 by Robby Cook, an A-rated Democrat from Eagle Lake. This bill effectively does away with "exceptions" to the application of any part of the Penal Code, including exceptions to prosecution for UCW (unlawful carrying of weapon) under 46.02 that will be created if HB1037 passes.

In essence, it would make everything a defense, once again shifting the burden to the defendant to prove his conduct came within the scope of an exception. This would negate the gains we have made in prior years by moving all of the former "defenses" to new "not applicable" sections in 46.15. Please note, as I mentioned in the post on HB1037, there is a remaining problem with the language in 46.15 and HB1037 introduces the proper language to take advantage of "exceptions" to certain Penal Code provisions relevant to CHL holders. I suspect HB2295 was filed at the request of the association of district attorneys (I can't recall the association's proper name) to negate the effect of HB1037, if it passes this session, or at any time in the future.

I seriously doubt Rep. Cook realized the full effect of this bill. In fairness to him, HB2295 appears to non-attorneys to be merely a procedural change, rather than a substantial change in the prosecution of all criminal cases, not merely UCW cases. As we have seen several times this session, special interest groups and constituents are submitting bills to Representatives and Senators and their full scope is not often appreciated on first reading, or until they get to committee. Also, the filing deadline for new bills is March 11th, so I'm sure all of these folks are getting hit with a flurry of new bills to file.

The bottom line is HB2295 would deprive the Legislature of the authority to make reasoned decisions as to whether any provision in the Penal Code should be an “exception,†a “defense,†or an “affirmative defense.†HB2295 reaches this goal through procedural means, rather than doing so in an above-board manner by directly changing every “exception†to a “affirmative defense.†The Legislature should retain the authority to make these decisions on behalf of all Texans.

Regards,
Chas.


Here is a link to the bill: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=02295&VERSION=1&TYPE=B

 

[CentralTexas]

Reply from TSRA

I wrote and sent this post to TSRA Dark and our lobbyist Alice Tripp after I saw it. I asked why for the second time this legislative session an "A" rated person filed an anti gun owner rights bill. Here is the reply from Alice-

"This is not an anti-gun bill. It was filed at the request of Rep. Cook's local county attorney. Our problems, there will be others with problems, have been pointed out to Rep. Cook."

Why is this "A" rated Rep putting up a bill for the county atty like this?

CT

 

[Charles Cotton]

Let's don't hang Rep. Cook quite yet.

As I noted, I don't think Rep. Cook realized the effect it would have on CHL's, or any of the other provisions in Texas Penal Code Section 46.15. In fact, unless HB1037 (Rep. Isett's bill) passes, HB2295 would have no effect on gun owners. Rep. Cook would have to sit down and compare all bills filed to see which, in combination with others, would effect gun owners in order to realize this could effect us. No Representative or Senator has the time or the staff to do this, so there are others who do.

Let's just see what Rep. Cook does with the bill now that he has more information. Remember, once a bill is filed it cannot be withdrawn, but it can be allowed to die in committee simply by its author not requesting a committee hearing.

Regards,
Chas.

 

[orangeninja]

Would this affect the status of long gun carrying? This would also negate the ability to take firearms hunting or to the shooting range since these are acceptions in the law.

 

[Charles Cotton]

No effect on long guns

Alduro:

If HB2295 passes, it would not effect carrying of long guns.

If HB2295 passes, it will not effect carrying of handguns by CHL's, or others, unless HB1037 also passes. The creation of 46.15 "Nonapplicability" section did not the desired effect of essentially creating another form of "exception," so it is important that we get behind Rep. Isett's HB1037. CHL's and others carrying handguns loose only if both HB2295 (bad bill) and HB1037 (good bill) pass.

HB2295 is a bad bill not only because of the potential effect on CHL's and other people carrying handguns, but because it effectively does away with "exceptions" from the entire Texas Penal Code.

Regards,
Chas.