Testimony will not be heard at this committee meeting on January 25, or at the full Commission meeting the following day. We will report back to you with instructions on how to weigh-in on this proposal after it has been formally submitted for public comment.

Governor Rick Perry

SB 321 applies to both public and private employers, as well as all lawfully-owned firearms – not just firearms in the possession of Concealed Handgun Licensees.  However, SB 321 does not authorize an employee to possess firearms on any property where such possession is prohibited by state or federal law, and the provisions of the bill do not apply to the following:

• Vehicles owned or leased by the employer and used by the employee for work purposes;
• School districts, open enrollment charter schools, and private schools as defined in Section 22.081, Education Code;
• Property owned or controlled by a person, other than an employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property; or
• Property owned or leased by a chemical manufacturer or oil and gas refiner permitted by TCEQ and on which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage or transportation of hazardous, combustible, or explosive materials; however, employees at  these facilities who are CHLs may store firearms (including rifles or shotguns) in their private motor vehicles in parking areas located outside of secured and restricted areas which contain the physical plant, are not open to the public and which are constantly monitored by security personnel.

Governor Perry also signed into law the following NRA-supported measures:

House Bill 25 by state Representative Ryan Guillen (D-Rio Grande City) and state Senator Dan Patrick (R-Houston) will extend the right to carry a handgun to your boat or personal watercraft without needing a Concealed Handgun License – a right which law-abiding Texans currently enjoy in their private motor vehicles.  For many, these vessels – especially on weekends in some parts of the state – are, for all practical purposes, an extension of one’s home.  It will remain an offense under HB 25 if the handgun is not hidden from plain view, the person in possession is engaged in criminal activity or a member of a criminal street gang, or the person is not eligible to possess the firearm under state or federal law.  Effective 9/1/11

House Bill 716 by state Representative Sid Miller (R-Stephenville) and state Senator Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) will allow properly-permitted landowners or helicopter owners to contract with third parties to ride on helicopters and take depredating feral hogs and coyotes.  This bill will help control the population of these animals and reduce cost to landowners.  The Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission will retain authority to ensure that these operations are run in a safe and effective manner.  Effective 9/1/11

House Bill 2560 by state Representative Ralph Sheffield (R-Temple) and state Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) will prevent the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services from adopting or enforcing rules restricting a foster parent’s ability to transport a foster child in a private motor vehicle if a handgun is present, as long as the foster parent is a Concealed Handgun Licensee and the handgun is “in the possession and control” of the foster parent.  This is intended to mean that the firearm could be stored in the glove box, console or trunk of the vehicle.  State agencies should not create disincentives to foster parenting by forcing those individuals to forego their Second Amendment rights!  Effective immediately

Senate Bill 766 by state Senator Craig Estes and state Representative Jason Isaac (R-Dripping Springs) limits the ability of local governments to sue owners or operators of sports shooting ranges, and requires an expert report on whether ranges meet generally-applicable industry standards before a civil action suit can be brought against them.  Effective 9/1/11

Please contact Governor Perry’s office to thank him for supporting the Second Amendment this session!  The Governor’s office may be reached by phone at 1-800-252-9600 or e-mail by clicking here.

As with most new model concealable handguns, initial availability is generally sparse to say the least, and the new Ruger LC9 (Light Carry 9) is no exception.  But Texas CHL License was able to get ahold of one, and considering the most commonly asked question regarding the pistol is how does it compare to the LCP, I wanted to give our readers a brief comparison between the two models.  The following is a quick review of the new Ruger LC9 pistol.

My first impression of the handgun when initially taken out of the box is how closely it resembles the LCP in appearance.  It’s not until you actually take a closer look at the pistol, that you find it is more like the LCP’s big brother.  Weighing in at only 17.10oz., it’s just 7.7oz. heavier and less than an inch taller and longer than the LCP.  The width is only slightly wider than the LCP and fits comfortably in your hand, and with the included extended floorplate magazine there is no fingers slipping off the butt of the grip as with the LCP and its included flat floorplate magazine.

Size comparison between the Ruger LC9, LCP and Taurus TCP.

Comparison of Ruger LCP & LC9 widths.

Another feature that I like is the fact that the firearm comes with a mechanical thumb actived safety.  Though not necessary, this is a feature that I prefer on firearms that I carry.  Another unexpected safety feature on the LC9 is a standard magazine safety.  Drop the magazine and you cannot pull the trigger.  This feature is generally only available on a select few pistol models, and these are usually intended more for law enforcement use.

The loaded chamber indicator is well marked with red paint on the sides which makes it easy to see if you have a round in the chamber.  And the 3 dot adjustable sight is certainly an improvement over the LCP with it’s grooved top rail and poor excuse for a front sight.

At the range, the LC9 handles and performs very well.  Wanting to give it a good test with a variety of ammunition, I brought a box of Winchester white box brass 9mm (157gr round nose), a box of Remington brass 9mm (157gr hollow point), a box of Remington brass 9mm (157gr round nose) and a box of Wolf steel case 9mm (157gr round nose) to shoot.

All ammunition brought performed well and without any failure to feeds.  Although this day at the range was not meant to be any form of accuracy check for the pistol, I did find it to shoot a few inches to the left at the 25 yard mark with the out-of-the-box factory sight setting.  As I said, the LC9 has adjustable sights and this is easily corrected, although not done on this particular day due to time limitations.

All ammunition used fed smoothly and with no failures.  The only failures during the test was with two magazines of Remington hollow point ammunition failing to lock open on last round.  Both magazines were shot consecutively and both failed to lock open once the last round was shot from each magazine.  I followed the two magazines of hollow point ammo with a magazine of Remington round nose which performed as expected and locked open on the last round.  I then fired one more magazine of hollow points through the firearm and it performed as intended this time and locked open on the last round.

To fully test the firearms ability to cycle mixed ammunition, I fired two magazines with mixed ammunition, and the LC9 cycled through without any failures.  I experienced no other failures during this day of shooting.

Recoil, although more than the LCP’s .380 round, is easily managed.  I did notice a slight trigger slap with the LC9, but didn’t pay much attention to it until perhaps a 100 rounds had been fired.  Otherwise the pistol was very enjoyable to shoot, and would be a very nice sidearm for either male or female concealed handgun license holders.

Overall I was very pleased with the performance of the Ruger LC9, and will certainly add this little gun into my concealed carry arsonal.

SB 321 now goes to Governor Rick Perry for his consideration.  Please contact his office to thank him for his past support and urge him to sign SB 321 into law.  The Governor’s office may be reached by phone at 1-800-252-9600 or e-mail by clicking here.

To view a copy of the measure as it finally passed, please click here.  NRA-ILA will send out a complete wrap-up of the legislative session, which ends on Memorial Day, to NRA members next week.

Please contact your state Senator over the weekend or first thing Monday morning and urge him or her to (1) support the motion to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider SB 354; (2) support passage of SB 354; and (3) oppose any gutting amendments to the bill – including any proposal to allow public colleges and universities to “opt-out” of the law.  Contact information can be found at the end of this alert.  If you need help identifying your state Senator, please click here.

Also this past week, the House Business & Industry Committee reported out Senate Bill 321 by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), NRA-backed legislation that would allow employees to transport and store firearms in their locked motor vehicles while parked at work.  This bill joins its House companion bill, House Bill 681 by state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington), in the House Calendars Committee – the body which decides if and when a bill gets scheduled for consideration by the full House.  

Unless House leadership and committee members hear from you, either bill could fail to be scheduled or be scheduled too late in the game to pass – which is what happened last session when House action stalled on a voter identification bill that was ahead of the parking lot bill on the House Calendar. 

Please contact the House Speaker and the following members of the Calendars Committee and politely urge them to set HB 681/SB 321, NRA-backed employee parking lot legislation, on the House Calendar as soon as possible! ]]> http://www.texaschllicense.com/2011/04/senate-vote-on-campus-carry-bill-moved-to-next-week-parking-lot-bill-on-the-move-in-the-house/feed/ 0 http://www.texaschllicense.com/2011/04/texas-senate-committee-advances-campus-carry-measure/ http://www.texaschllicense.com/2011/04/texas-senate-committee-advances-campus-carry-measure/#comments Sun, 17 Apr 2011 02:56:27 +0000 admin http://www.texaschllicense.com/?p=592 Friday, April 01, 2011

On Thursday, the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice passed Senate Bill 354 by state Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), by a 4 to 2 vote. This legislation would allow concealed carry license holders to protect themselves on the campuses of public colleges and universities. As you know, in order to obtain a CHL in Texas, individuals must be 21 or older, have passed a state and federal criminal records check, and completed a handgun training course. A two-thirds vote of Senators present and voting (21 if they are all there) will be necessary to “suspend the regular order of business” and bring SB 354 up for consideration on the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

Opponents of this measure will continue using scare tactics and predicting horrible consequences if this bill passes, so your state Senator need to hear from you!

Please contact your state Senator and urge him or her to support SB 354 by voting to “suspend the regular order of business” so that the measure can be debated and voted on by the full Senate, and to oppose any gutting amendments to the bill – including any attempt to allow taxpayer-funded public colleges and universities to “opt-out” of its provisions!

Texas Administrative Code

TITLE 37, PART 1, CHAPTER 6, SUBCHAPTER B, RULE §6.12

 (4) Fingerprints. Under State law TXDPS must conduct a fingerprint based State and FBI Criminal History background check as part of the application process for both original and renewal applicants.

Effective March 1, 2011, all original applicants must submit fingerprints through the Fingerprint Application Service of Texas (FAST), or by an entity qualified to take electronic fingerprints of an applicant for a license through the FAST system. All applicants must display to the person recording the fingerprints a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by the applicant’s state of residence. If fingerprints are not taken electronically, the department will resubmit renewal applicants’ existing fingerprints for background check processing. However, if fingerprints on file do not meet current FBI or Texas quality standards, applicants will be required to submit new fingerprints to complete the renewal application process. The person who records the applicant’s fingerprints shall:

     (A) verify the identity of the person being fingerprinted;

     (B) complete and verify the accuracy of the non-fingerprint data being submitted; and

     (C) record the individual’s fingerprints. 

State Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) offered a floor amendment which would have required employees of companies employing more than 10,000 workers at one location to notify their employer of their desire to store firearms in their cars while parked at work. During the debate, it was made clear that the only company who would have benefitted from this “mandatory notice provision” was USAA, based in her district in San Antonio . Ironically, USAA serves insurance clients who are military personnel or dependents of such! The amendment was tabled by a 22 to 8 vote. After that overwhelming outcome, no other amendments were offered which would have exempted certain industry sectors from the bill, namely, defense contractors such as Raytheon, Boeing, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed and L-3, who were lobbying for exclusion from the bill.

SB 321 will now move to the state House for consideration – we will keep you posted on further action items once it receives a committee referral in that chamber. The fight is not over! These companies will continue to fight for notice requirements and exemptions in the House, so be aware of where they stand and be prepared to direct calls and e-mails into House offices in opposition to such requirements and industry “carve-outs”.

Also, on Monday, the House Business & Industry Committee voted out House Bill 681, the House companion bill to SB 321 sponsored by state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington). This measure now moves to the House Calendars Committee, which has full authority to determine if and when the bill gets set for consideration by the full House. It will take the balance of this week for the bill to “officially” move to Calendars. We will keep you posted on any necessary action items on this bill in the near future.

This alert is posted at: http://www.nramedia.org/t/46447/4379623/2514/0/

NRA-ILA

Last week, we reported to you that two NRA-backed bills had already been filed in the Texas Senate: Senate Bill 321 by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), legislation prohibiting employers from enforcing policies against the storage of lawfully-owned firearms in employees’ private motor vehicles parked at work, and Senate Bill 354 by state Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), a bill to allow Concealed Handgun Licenses to protect themselves on college and university campuses. This week, state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington) introduced House Bill 681, the House version of the parking lot bill, and state Representative Joe Driver (R-Garland) filed House Bill 750, the House version of the campus carry measure.

Corporate policies that prohibit workers from safely storing their firearms inside their cars and trucks parked on company parking lots have the effect of denying employees the right to protect themselves during their commute to and from work every day. State laws and administrative policies disarming CHLs at institutions of higher education leave trained, law-abiding citizens vulnerable to a violent attack and have no deterrent effect on criminals.

Big business interests and liberal higher education administrators have a tremendous amount of influence in the Texas Legislature – and they will vigorously oppose these bills. That’s why it’s critical that your state lawmakers hear from you! Please contact your state Representatives and urge them to sign on as co-authors to both HB 681 and HB 750. Contact information for state House members can be found at www.house.state.tx.us.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s historic decision Monday allowing gun owners to challenge city and state regulations as a violation of their Second Amendment rights clears the way for new challenges to firearms laws nationwide.A five-justice conservative majority, over vigorous protests from the four more liberal justices, declared the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American notion of liberty and can shield gun owners from certain regulations across the country. Although the majority noted some gun laws would stand, such as prohibitions on felons possessing firearms, its rationale is certain to usher in a new era of litigation over gun control.

The case stemmed from a 28-year-old Chicago law that was a rare, total ban on handguns. The law was challenged by four homeowners who said they needed handguns for their safety. The high court’s decision could fuel lawsuits against myriad local regulations — from firearms licensing requirements to limits on weapons carried outside the home.

 ”It’s going to be city by city, town by town, block by block,”

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre vowed Monday. “We’re going to have to work into every level to make sure this constitutional victory isn’t turned into a practical defeat.” Monday’s decision was somewhat predictable, in light of the justices’ 5-4 decision in 2008 that first found an individual right to bear arms in the Second Amendment and the tenor of oral arguments in the Chicago case in March.

Yet it greatly expands the force and consequences of the ruling two years ago and generated new concern from city officials worried it would undercut gun laws and lead to more violence.

“Across the country, cities are struggling with how to address this issue,” Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said at City Hall. “Common sense tells you we need fewer guns on the street, not more guns.”

David Pope, president of the village of Oak Park, outside Chicago, which also was defending a handgun ban, said the ruling curbs local flexibility to address crime. “For a long time, we always thought it was reasonable and constitutional for different cities and towns to have different regulations,” he said.

Several large cities, including Baltimore, Cleveland and Oakland, had urged the court not to rule against Chicago. They were joined by three states with urban centers, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey, that warned if the high court extended the Second Amendment’s reach, “nearly every firearms law will become the subject of a constitutional challenge, and even in cases where the law ultimately survives, its defense will be costly and time-consuming.”

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, which supports strict gun-control laws, predicted more than a new tide of lawsuits.

“People will die because of this decision,” she said. “It is a victory only for the gun lobby and America’s fading firearms industry.”

As Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito announced the court’s opinion from the bench Monday, though, he said experts differ on whether private gun possession increases or decreases death and injury.

Alito also said that the 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing the right to keep and bear arms under federal law, steered the court’s decision Monday. The 2008 case arose from a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

In Monday’s case, Alito deemed the right to bear arms “fundamental” and noted the court had previously held that most provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to both the federal government and the states. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Breyer read portions of his dissent from the bench Monday, warning the new ruling would interfere with legislative efforts nationwide to control firearms and violence.

Dissenting separately, Justice Stevens, who is retiring, criticized the majority’s view that the Second Amendment right to firearms is so fundamental and valuable that it must be applied broadly.

“Just as (firearms) can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders,” Stevens wrote, “they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims. The threat that firearms will be misused is far from hypothetical, for gun crime has devastated many of our communities.”

‘Not the end of all gun laws’

Monday’s case, brought by Otis McDonald and three other Chicagoans who said they wanted to keep handguns in their home for self-defense, presented the second round of high-stakes litigation over the scope of the Second Amendment.

For decades, despite polls showing Americans believed in an individual right to bear arms, most federal judges had ruled that the Second Amendment covered only a right of state militias, such as National Guard units. That changed when the justices ruled definitively in 2008 there is an individual right to firearms in the home for personal safety.

In trying to distinguish its handgun ban from the Washington, D.C., ordinance struck down in 2008, the City of Chicago had argued that firearms violence there was of such a magnitude that the court should not extend its earlier decision to the states.

Chicago officials argued the Second Amendment involves a right to possess an item designed to kill or cause injury and cannot be likened to, for example, the First Amendment right of free speech, because it is not fundamental to individual liberty.

Alito’s opinion for the court rejected that idea. He said that “a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the federal government and the states.” He also dismissed arguments from Chicago officials and their backers that the court’s extending the Second Amendment to the states would threaten all existing gun laws.

He said the Heller decision “recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’ … We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, (the decision) does not imperil law regulating firearms.”

Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion signed by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, insisted state and local communities have carefully considered how they want to regulate guns and that their judgments would now be usurped by judges.

The Chicago challengers’ case was brought on June 26, 2008, the day the Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C., handgun ban. Chicagoans Adam Orlov and Colleen and David Lawson joined McDonald in the case.

They were represented by Virginia lawyer Alan Gura, who had taken the lead on Heller.

“The court has made clear that the Second Amendment is a powerful, meaningful right,” Gura said Monday.

“This is not the end of all gun laws. We weren’t seeking an end to all gun laws. But it is going to be the end of those laws meant only to interfere with people’s constitutional rights.”

He said some registration laws, for example, can be so cumbersome that they restrict gun rights. Gura said he would soon be filing more lawsuits.

Some cities already revising laws

Chicago’s Mayor Daley suggested the court’s decision reflected a lack of understanding of the tragedies wrought by gun violence.

“To suggest that Chicago’s elected officials haven’t done enough to protect our city’s residents shows many of our highest-level officials don’t understand that gun violence pervades America, not just Chicago,” he said.

He said the city was considering how to revise its law. The justices’ rationale is likely to lead to the invalidation of the Chicago handgun ban, but the high court’s majority did not definitely rule against the city’s ban, and instead sent Monday’s case back to lower courts for final action.

Some cities had begun revising their gun-control laws in anticipation of Monday’s ruling. In Wilmette, Ill., Village Manager Timothy Frenzer said the community repealed its 19-year-old gun ban shortly after the high court’s 2008 decision, largely because the “outcome (Monday) was predictable.”

“All the groundwork had been laid in 2008 for the court to take the step it did today,” Frenzer says.

In the two years since the community’s gun ban was repealed, Frenzer says there has been “no detectable change” in crime.

Some cities, including New York, have strict gun licensing rules that critics such as LaPierre say end up being a ban for some would-be gun owners.

“I will continue to collaborate with mayors across the country to pursue common-sense, constitutional approaches to protecting public safety,” said Bloomberg, co-chairman of the national coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

The majority of states sided with those challenging Chicago’s ban. Thirty-eight states, led by Texas, said the Second Amendment should apply broadly. They said that some 44 states include the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers’ reactions reflected the public’s deep divisions over gun laws.

Judiciary Committee members Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised the ruling. Hatch called it a “victory for law-abiding gun owners.” Leahy said “state and local governments will now have to proceed more carefully” on gun regulations, but “it will be in respect of a right that belongs to all Americans.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, countered that she was “extremely dismayed” by the ruling.

“I believe the proliferation of guns has made this country less safe, not more safe,” said Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor. She assumed that job in 1978, after Mayor George Moscone was fatally shot by former supervisor Dan White.

Contributing: Judy Keen in Chicago and Kathy Kiely in Washington