• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB 1893 is out of comitte and is on to the house!

S

SilentKTexan

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Euless, Texas, USA
imported post

I know there are high tensions between the open carry group and the students for conceal carry on campus... But I am a member of both and have supported both.

Just want to give an update that the bill is out of committee and is headed to the house for a vote. I would bet on this becoming law during this session.



Edit* Yes... I just realized that committee is misspelled in the title of the thread...It won't let me change it now..ha
 
J

jarodm20

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
98
Location
West Texas, , USA
imported post

Man this is great news!! I've been tracking this bill along with its Senate companion bill, and the House and Senate bills to prohibit employers from prohibiting employees to bring their firearms to work (to leave in their cars). We're making progress.
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

good for them as well as all gun rights activists. It's too bad that their leadership has such a piss poor attitude about everyone elses gun rights.
 
S

SilentKTexan

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Euless, Texas, USA
imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:
good for them as well as all gun rights activists. It's too bad that their leadership has such a piss poor attitude about everyone elses gun rights.
Click to expand...


Yeah... This is why I hate politics. I received a note from Michael 2 days ago.. He said he did everything he could to make sure that the open carry bill never got introduced.

I replied that I was pissed off that he would be supporting one pro 2A bill and against another... I haven't heard back from him.

Hopefully he will put all of that energy into open carry once this passes.
 
S

SilentKTexan

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Euless, Texas, USA
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
SilentKTexan wrote:
I received a note from Michael 2 days ago.. He said he did everything he could to make sure that the open carry bill never got introduced.
Click to expand...
What a dick...  :cuss:
Click to expand...


This is the last message I received from him after a few back and forths about the student conceal carry bill..

"Michael Guzman
April 7 at 10:54am
No. I tried all I could to ensure the open carry bill wouldn't be introduced. It had no chance of passing and would have confused enough people to ensure that the campus carry bill would have died as well.

Its safe to say that the open carry folks aren't too fond of me although I do support open carry."
 
D

DopaVash

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
313
Location
Graham, Texas
imported post

I understand why he did what he did, and maybe there's even some validity to it all, but the way he's gone about it... just not healthy for anything Pro-2A.

Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.
 
S

SilentKTexan

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
141
Location
Euless, Texas, USA
imported post

DopaVash wrote:
...Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.
Click to expand...


I sure hope so... Especially since he has gotten it this far he would be a great help for open carry.
 
D

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

SilentKTexan wrote:
DopaVash wrote:
...Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.
Click to expand...


I sure hope so... Especially since he has gotten it this far he would be a great help for open carry.
Click to expand...
with friends like that............
 
rodbender

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
imported post

SilentKTexan wrote:
DopaVash wrote:
...Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.
Click to expand...


I sure hope so... Especially since he has gotten it this far he would be a great help for open carry.
Click to expand...
I would rather OC never pass than to accept help from the likes of Mike Guzman. He is NOT what 2A needs. We need people that will support ALL 2A advancement, not some a**hole that will pick and choose.
 
Kevin Jensen

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
I would rather OC never pass than to accept help from the likes of Mike Guzman.
Click to expand...

My biggest beef with the guy is that he will not look past his own agenda. He is putting privileges before rights.

I decided to read HB 1893, and was surprised to find that they want topreempt private schools as well.

Just curious what others think about this. :question: Should the State not let private institutions decide for themselves?




BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION1.Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, isamended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows:



Sec.411.2031.CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ONCERTAIN CAMPUSES. (a) For purposes of this section, "institutionof higher education" and "private or independent institution ofhigher education"have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003,Education Code.


(b)A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on orabout the license holder's person while the license holder is on thecampus of an institution of higher education or private orindependent institution of higher education in this state.


(c)An institution of higher education or private orindependent institution of higher education in this state may notadopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting licenseholders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.


(d)An institution of higher education or private orindependent institution of higher education in this state mayestablish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning thestorage of handguns in dormitories or other residential buildingsthat are owned or operated by the institution and located on thecampus of the institution.
Click to expand...
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

I decided to read HB 1893, and was surprised to find that they want topreempt private schools as well.

Just curious what others think about this. :question: Should the State not let private institutions decide for themselves?
Click to expand...
Yes, they should, but this is the same bunch that thinks they should control whether private property can ban guns, through their employee parking lot bill.

Private schools, and private employers, should be free to ban whatever they see fit.
 
N

NativeTexan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
29
Location
Splendora, Texas, USA
imported post

rodbender wrote:
I would rather OC never pass than to accept help from the likes of Mike Guzman. He is NOT what 2A needs. We need people that will support ALL 2A advancement, not some a**hole that will pick and choose.
Click to expand...
Agreed! The 2A doesn't depend on a privilege but is a right.
 
C

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

KBCraig,

...and people should be free to sue (and WIN) millions of dollars from said "Private schools, and private employers" EVERYTIME there is a shooting and someone is killed or wounded in those "gun free zones."

It works both ways. Or it should.

-- John D.
 
L

lonestarbandit

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

hear hear. but we all know that the laws never work equally both ways. look at our criminal justice system. but a nice thought and i agree. laws only work when they are followed. now what criminal do you know that would consult a rulebook before shooting someone, in a gun free zone or elsewhere. seems fair to me. if they ban our right to defend ourselves then they should be liable when we are injured or otherwise assaulted on their gun free "property":celebrate
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
KBCraig,

...and people should be free to sue (and WIN) millions of dollars from said "Private schools, and private employers" EVERYTIME there is a shooting and someone is killed or wounded in those "gun free zones."

It works both ways. Or it should.

-- John D.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. Of course, there is a difference between a place that you are compelled to go (government property like schools and courts), and a place that you volunarily go (private property where you work, shop, or are a guest).

There's much less of a case to be made for places where you decide that your desire to enter the property overcomes your desire to stay armed.
 
L

lonestarbandit

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
4
Location
, ,
imported post

KBCraig wrote:
cloudcroft wrote:
KBCraig,

...and people should be free to sue (and WIN) millions of dollars from said "Private schools, and private employers" EVERYTIME there is a shooting and someone is killed or wounded in those "gun free zones."

It works both ways. Or it should.

-- John D.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. Of course, there is a difference between a place that you are compelled to go (government property like schools and courts), and a place that you volunarily go (private property where you work, shop, or are a guest).

There's much less of a case to be made for places where you decide that your desire to enter the property overcomes your desire to stay armed.

true. but i was referencing primarily college campus situations. i am a 34 year old f/t college student and ex soldier and chl holder and see no reason other than misinformation from the media that panics people that should prevent me from carrying on campus. i may not be law enforcement but i HAVE had plenty of training :dude:
Click to expand...
 
C

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

KBCraig,


I believe ANY place one goes - private or not -- MUST exercise AT LEAST "reasonable care" for the people within. You go to a "private" house or "private" business and slip on a sidewalk and get injured, or go to MacDonalds and spill hot coffee on you, and you CAN sue them for millions. I would think that getting killed or wounded on the same properties would be MUCH more worth a lawsuit. If it is NOT, then shame on the American "justice" system.

After a few lawsuits for many millions of dollars, you can be sure "corporate policy" will change. At the very least, the cheapskate CEOs will decide to allow CHL holders to carry on their premises if for no other reason than their bottom line: No corporate money has to be spent ("wasted") on hired armed security -- they just use "free" CHL civilians.

Damn suits...

-- John D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top