The new version removes protection from gun confiscation and cities preventing lawful carry by non-CHL holders


New version:


Quote
SECTION 5. Section 229.001, Local Government Code, is              amended by amending Subsections (a) and (b) and adding Subsection              (e) to read as follows:              (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002              of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a [A] municipality              may not adopt regulations relating to:              (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping,              transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms,              ammunition, or firearm supplies; or              (2)the discharge of a firearm at a sport shooting              range.              (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a              municipality has under another law to:              (1) require residents or public employees to be armed              for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another              lawful purpose;              (2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the              limits of the municipality, other than at a sport shooting range;              (3) regulate the use of property, the location of a              business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code,              zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code,              ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of              Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;              (4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an              insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds              the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;              (5) regulate the storage or transportation of              explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25              pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50              pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not              subject to regulation; [or]              (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person              other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under              Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:              (A) public park;              (B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or              other governmental body;              (C) political rally, parade, or official              political meeting; or              (D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or              professional athletic event; or              (7)regulate the hours of operation of a sport              shooting range, except that the hours of operation may not be more              limited than the least limited hours of operation of any other              business in the municipality other than a business permitted or              licensed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises              consumption.              (e)In this section, "sport shooting range" has the meaning              assigned by Section 250.001.

Old version:


Quote

Sec. 229.001. FIREARMS; EXPLOSIVES. (a) A municipality may not adopt regulations relating to the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies.
(b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to:
(1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose;
(2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality;
(3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection;
(4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety;
(5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25 pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50 pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not subject to regulation; or
(6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a:
(A) public park;
(B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body;
(C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or
(D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event.
(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.
(d) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(4) does not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.

What was left out of the new bill.....


(c) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(6) does not apply if the firearm is in or is carried to or from an area designated for use in a lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting event and the firearm is of the type commonly used in the activity.
(d) The exception provided by Subsection (b)(4) does not authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition.




THANKS FOR NOTHIN!!

This session started out with such promise and look what we got... no campus carry, no open carry, parking lot bill still hasn't made it through and this.  I wish ballots still identified incumbents so people would know who NOT to vote for.

"LoneStarCDL" does not understand how bills are written and has a fear-monger agenda.   It appears he wants to drum up hate for NRA/TSRA and get new converts to his organization.  

If a bill is written that adds sections to statutes, as SB 766 does, the existing, unchanged language is not placed in the bill again.  Rather, you only add what new or modified items that are changing in the bill.

If you want statutes removed by a bill, the bill must strikeout the text to be removed.

SB 766 does none of the things claimed by LoneStarCDL.   The sections he says are missing are not struck.  Look at the bill text yourself:  http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB00766F.htm.  You can see other areas of the bill where deletions are made.  The sections c and d he refers to are not struck.  Thus, they are completely unchanged.

I also do not understand how this new organization can attempt to advance any legislation at all, period, if the leaders do not understand the simple format of bills on the Texas legislature website.  

1) Open carry was pushed by a small group that did not do their homework (sorry if you are part of this group).  No senate companion was filed, and the house bill needed work.
2) Parking lot bill is going fine, the conference committee output was approved by house and senate.  Waiting on bureaucracy before it is sent to the Gov for signature.  Look here, you should see "sent to the Governor" in the next few days:  http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB321
3) Campus carry, yes, I wanted it too.  As mentioned previously, the anti's got out the call, email, fax, office visit machine.  Their response dwarfed ours.  We need a bigger army for 2013.
4) What incumbents would you vote out just because they are incumbents? Incumbents like Senator Wentworth that championed campus carry? Rep Kleinschmidt that sponsored the employer parking lots?  Or maybe an analysis of the RKBA voting records will yield a better map of who should be removed.  
5) Lastly, no one wants to hear this, but the fight for CC in Texas took a long time (> 6 years).  It gets better almost every session.  CC has only been legal in Texas for 16 years.  To think you will get everything you want in one or two legislative sessions is not realistic.  Parking lots took 4 sessions.  At teh end of the day, the bill we got through this time is drastically better than ones in previous sessions (I don't have to park in an alterative parking lot, tell my employer, etc).

Think strategically, take lumps, accept that it always won't go your way, prepare to fight next time, and execute your plan every session.

Ramble all you want to ARTX, we can all clearly see how the text was missing. We can also see how it will be addressed as needed.
For your benefit I will take the time to " Educate" you how bill's are written. Bills must be made to include the entire section of the penal code. " That also helps to prevent confusion". When text is added, the draft for the bill must have the added text underlined. To remove text, you strike thru it. By including ALL of the original text and using strike thru and underlining, it help those who read the bill to clearly understand what's being changed.
Go do your homework ARTX becasue the LSCDL folks are keeping an eye out for this sort of thing. If the missing text in SB766 was just a typo im sure it will get cleared up. If we see an issue, WE WILL MAKE THE PUBLIC AWARE. You wont get an apology either. We have many dedicated Texans who contribute their time to tracking legislation.
The rest of your comments wont hold no more water than your pockets will, so you'll just have to wait for us to present the facts.

I often lurk, and seldom post however I can not let this one go unchallenged.

Part of a well written bill in Texas is that it DOES NOT touch anything it doesn't have to.  The so called "missing" sections are not mentioned in the bill simply because there is no need to change them.  If you read the Text of the bill you will see that it says:

This means that only subsections (a) and (b) are changed and that a subsection (e) is added.  I have read the bill and no where in it does it say anything about striking subsections (c) and (d).  In fact it would make little sense to alter (a) and (b) while adding an (e) if there is no (c) and (d).  Continuing to claim that the bill will remove protections after taking note of this means that the party making the claims either has no reading comprehension skills or is intentionally spreading misinformation.

I think everyone reading this can quickly see why some two "new" gun movements in Texas, campus carry and open carry, have both made different amounts of progress.  One group took the time to learn the system and work with people while maintaining independence and the other group just started throwing bombs around and saying the first thing that came to mind, whether true or not.

Folks, I haven't posted on AR-15.com in quite a while and I want to apologize for the negative tone of this reply.  However, the posts by LoneStarCDL on this subject are false and they are consistent with false information being spread about the Texas range protection bill, SB766 by the Lone Star Citizens Defense League through its President Mr. Shane McCrary.  He posts under the name MR REDNECK on OpenCarry.org and, until recently, on other forums.  From the writing style and tone of LoneStarCDL, I and others strongly suspect LoneStarCDL and MR REDNECK are the same person, though we could be mistaken.

LoneStarCDL is wrong about how bills are written, but more importantly he is wrong about SB766 repealing protection the NRA and TSRA previously obtained for Texas gun owners.  I am an attorney, a Member of the NRA Board of Directors, and I have served as pro bono legislative counsel for TSRA for 26 years.  I have been writing legislation for over 30 years and I wrote SB766.  A thorough discussion of how legislation is written and a discussion of SB766 specifically can be found on the TexasCHLforum.com thread on SB766

It should be noted that since Mr. McCrary first posted his false allegations on OpenCarry.org, he was proven wrong and he has now tried to back away from his erroneous claims.  You can click here to see  thread on OpenCarry.org.  Please note two things about MR REDNECK/LoneStarCDL's posts.  After his first false allegation about SB766 (post #1), his second post (post #2) attacks the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA).  The second thing to note is that after he was proven wrong, MR REDNECK tired to back off his claims (post #12), but in so doing he refused and still refuses to apologize to the TSRA for his false allegations.  

MR REDNECK's motive in attacking TSRA is consistent with MR REDNECK's longstanding hatred of the NRA and TSRA.  What is amazing to most Texas gun owners is that he and his organization, the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, would actually put out a call to veto SB766, a bill that is so desperately needed to protect shooting ranges in Texas.   I have been told that since his allegations have been proven false, the LSCDL has deleted its veto call, but there is no evidence that they or MR REDNECK/LoneStarCDL have publicly broadcast a retraction of its veto call.  Even now LoneStarCDL makes false claims about how bills supposed to be written and makes no attempt to retract his false claims made here at AR-15.com.

Please take the time to read the discussion in the link I provided above.  I don't want anyone to be deceived or have any lingering doubts about the protection provided by SB766.  Again, I apologize for the negative tone of this post, but I felt compelled to address the false allegations being published by the LSCDL's President in an attempt to have SB766 vetoed and to discredit the TSRA in the process.

Regards,
Chas.

We will know once SB766 is final and becomes law. This isnt the only bill that will need more "explaining".
As for your campus carry and open carry comment, we are very disappointed campus carry didnt pass. With a Republic rule of the House, most people thought it was a sure thing.
Getting the open carry legislation was a great accomplishment in itself. For the first time in 140 years, The LoneStar got open carry to Austin in the form of a bill. Too bad the bill was treated like it was. So many people were supporting this effort, but now we all see the real reason why Texas hasn't had open carry addressed prior to the LSCDL doing it.
It doesn't matter at this point because the session is pretty much over and we were convinced the open carry bill was dead weeks ago. HB2756 was simply to help Texans see the true colors of who they elected and who they are depending on, it would have been nice if Austin would have done a better job.  " The real effort for open carry hasn't started yet". This effort will benefit more than just open carry.
The LoneStar CDL is an organization of Constituents who are the Republican form of Government, " Laws made by the people".  It's not about one persons idea or what that one person wants. It's not about money or how much it cost. The LoneStar CDL is all about the rights of Texans and thats what were working on! Get your rights back

Having read the above links, and your organizations attempts to thwart pro-gun legislation I will definitely not be supporting your organization and I hope that others leave it. The last thing the people of Texas need is a misinformed and ignorant group pushing a simultaneous pro and anti-gun agenda.

Thwart?? Where would you come up with such a thing. When important text is left out of a bill, it needs public acknowledgement. If the provision that were shown to be left out are not "fixed", anyone without a CHL will not have range or sporting protection from UCW. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU JUST LEAVE OUT AND MAKE EXCUSES FOR!!
It's clear by the post count of the previous members that your only registered to this forum to defend the "Elitist". The LoneStar is pretty popular with our military men and women, thats where most of our members come from. We even have several LE members. And growing everyday...

Joined March 2011, post count 36

You and the Lone Star Citizens Defense League were caught publishing false allegations about SB766 and the TSRA and you are clearly in damage control mode.  Nothing was left out of SB766 and, as you know, a  bill cannot be changed, or "fixed" as you  say, after it has passed.   "Pooley" on OpenCarry.org pointed this out to you and you acknowledged it, albeit reluctantly, then commented "lest (sic) just hope it works out that way."  (See Post #12)

Now you are trying to lay the groundwork to claim that the bill was somehow altered after it passed all because of your warning.  No one is going to fall for that Shane!  It can't be done after a bill passes.

In your quest to bash the NRA and TSRA, you also falsely claimed that the employer parking lot bill (SB321) only applied to CHL's.  OpenCarry Link  Once again you went into an erroneous analysis of the language in the Bill to support your bogus claims.  Unfortunately, a number of people picked up your claims and posted them on TexasGunTalk and on the TexasCHLforum.  So, once again I posted proof that your claim was unfounded.  This proof includes a link to Rep. Dutton's failed Amendment #6 that would have narrowed SB321 so that it would apply only to CHL's, a copy of the House Committee Report that was being debated at the time, as well as links to the video of the House Floor debate where the House sponsor of SB321 (Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt) expressly stated that SB321 was not limited to CSL's.  Also included is a link to the House Floor debate video on Rep. Dutton's Amendment #6 where Dutton passionately called on House Members to adopt his Amendment so that it would apply only to CHL's  

You hate the NRA, TSRA and anyone who doesn't buy into your scorched earth policies to support open-carry.  Unfortunately, you don't seem to be constrained by the truth either.

If you truly care about the Second Amendment and Texas gun owners, then stop your senseless campaign of deception against the TSRA, NRA and our legislation.  Sadly, I know this plea will fall on deaf ears, but at least gun owners are rapidly learning what you and the Lone Star Citizens Defense League stand for and the tactics to which you will resort.

Chas.

The parking lot bill should have failed too. Unfortunate that it didn't. Hopefully, businesses will pack their shit and move to states with more respect for the rights of property owners. On the bright side, employers can still find some other reason to shitcan you.



You don't have a right to a job, nor do you have a right to be on someone else's property once they make it clear that you aren't welcome. Engaging in the latter is just being a dickhead. The legislature is attempting to create rights out of thin air, just as congress has done on multiple occasions.

What states have higher property rights than Texas in your opinion?

Man, oh man do I hate libertarians.





They'll be the death of us all one day.



Oh and seriously, you're dead wrong. Leaving a gun in MY FUCKING CAR is not a violation of anyone's property rights no matter how hard you try and twist the issue. That's all.





 

That's what I was thinking.  However I don't hate Libertarians.

Firts I would like to expain the parking lot bill, well what I think about it at least. There is nothing wrong with a person being able to store their firearm inside of their vehicle while at work. This law will benefit a lot of people. " Whats the harm with leaving your gun in your truck"? It's none of anyones business what you put in your vehicle until you take it out.
Second, SB766 had important text left out of it. If it hurts anyone's feelings that we stay on top of these issue and pick up on the little things, well then you got other problems. We have a lot of great guy's who contribute to our goal simply because they want the right to carry in Texas the way Texans deserve it.
I posted the documents that shows the missing text, and that aint false information either.
The end result is all were looking for here. If the text stay as it should, then we will all be satisfied.

Also, Mr. Cotton I dont hate the NRA. I have contribute quite a bit of money to the Friends of the NRA over the years. This year I have probably contributed close to $2,000 so far. Most of the money they get stays in the area to benefit youth sporting, something I will always help with.Ted Nugent is one of my favorite people and Tom Selleck  is just one classy guy.
You just need to learn one little thing about me, I do not support restrictions to a Constitutional Right. You right when you claim I dont know everything because I dont. You should also understand that im not much more than someone for all the Nay sayers to through stuff at. We have some very sharp people in the LSCDL who are working on our Constitutional 2nd amendment right, im just the one who stands between them and all the negativity. And Im Glad To Do IT.

You keep saying that we will know when sb766 becomes law, but you guys with all your intelligent people could have already researched this and avoided spreading this FUD.  I'll even make it easy for you folks by giving you a starting point for your research: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/.  You can look up past bills at that link to see how they were written and how they affected the law.

BTW you can look at my join date to verify how long I have been a member of this forum, so unless I have the ability to travel back in time I did not sign up just to defend the "elitist" as you say.  I originally registered to make a public apology, which I later regretted but that is a different matter.  I call things like I see them and sometimes I am wrong, when I am wrong I do acknowledge it.  I would suggest that you consider adopting a similar policy.

Your car is on their property, just like you are.



ETA: BTW, I hate yankees and don't consider myself a libertarian. I would be thrilled if TX walled up every border and sent yankees back home to the fucked up mess of a state they created and left.





 

Any of them that still allow an employer to decide what is, and isn't allowed on property the employer leases or owns.



 

Anyone with a lick of sense can tell where the garbage lies, and in case anyone misses my position, that garbage lies with the OP

I did not know, for certain, that Mr Redneck and the OP were one in the same, but I found the former in several lies on another forum.

For what that's worth.

Now that's not nice Tx.
What lies might you be talking about. I have no reason to lie to anyone, only scared people lie.
Im actaully kinda fond of you and your willingness to help people with legal questions.
As for the OP, the text that was missing is clear as a bell.

Your fondness is irrelevant to me.  I am glad you admit you are one in the same.  

Regarding the erroneous allegations you made in your initial post here; you either seriously lack any understanding of how the bills are listed on the legislature website and lack basic comprehension skills, or you are intentionally posting mislesding information.  The latter being known by most as a LIE.   I firmly believe you are involved in the latter.

And your metaphor makes zero sense.  

Sorry for any trouble Mod.

Blah-blah-blah
 

Good grief.

IBTL.

Jim

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way....



 

And they snuck lot of crap in for themselves and other privileged classes.



 

In real life, rights often collide. That is what happened here.





Fact is, 300 years of history have shown the business and property rights are very low in priority. Gun rights are much higher, especially with recent SCOTUS decisions.





I too hope businesses that cannot respect gun rights pack up and leave too. NJ or MD or Cali would be perfect for them. Any business that concerns itself with what lawful owned property is in an employee's car to the point it would fire the employee over it does not need to be in Texas.





 

If the TSRA or the NRA took up Open Carry (Charles Cotton lobbyist for these organizations) as cause we wouldn't need something like LoneStarCDL to represent those issues.  Open carry has membership\former membership support but it falls on deaf ears at the TSRA causing frustration.
 

We will make progress on the issues of Campus Carry and Open Carry. I predict we will "get" those issues resolved within two sessions. That may not be quickly enough for some but it's the simple reality of a part time legislature. It takes time. I'd also like to see someone take a stab, pun intended, at reforming the knife laws of Texas. We have some goofy laws regarding knives, machetes, "tomahawks" etc....

LonestarCDL would be fine if they did not lie about things or attack organizations that don't jump on their bandwagons.  

The simple fact is the bill referenced in the OP does not leave out what LSCDL states it does.

We went over this two years ago.



If the 70,000 folks who signed the online petition want OC and would join TSRA and contact TSRA and tell them to make OC the #1 legislative priority, it would happen.



TSRA did fought pretty much for what its members wanted this session.



 

To the OP I commented early on in TGT that the language wasn't left out or it'd have been strike though and on the bill.





 

Current members have requested.  The result was as I've found no interest at all in fact some hostility to the point of the TSRA leadership.  That this group DID take action and got open carry considered is a HUGE step forward despite it's flaws at best and speaks to how easy it would have been for the TSRA\NRA to get this issue advanced.
 

Nothing good about this grief

I don't think libertarians think that way...
http://www.lp.org/platform
See section 2.1 where they seem to address the issue and also 1.6 regarding self-defense.
I'm about as libertarian as one can get, but I've never thought that business rights come before individual rights.
Here is the original quiz from 1969 to determine political stance.
There are some newer/updated ones, but I think some of them key onto more topical and/or current events.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz