TEXAS: Senate Passes Guns-In-Car-At-Work Bill 30-1

[GreenStormCloud]

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege/senate-oks-bill-on-keeping-guns-in-car

AUSTIN (KXAN) - Passing 30-1 in the Texas State Senate Tuesday, a bill letting people keep firearms and ammunition in their vehicles while at work is one step closer to law.

The measure, which will next go to a House committee for a hearing, keeps employers from banning workers for having guns in parking lots as long as they are inside a car. Last session, a similar bill passed the Senate but not in the House.

Authored by Sen. Glenn Hegar , Jr., R-Katy, SB321 also states that businesses can still prohibit guns from offices and company vehicles.

"This bill is about personal freedoms, constitutional rights and the rights of Texans with a concealed handgun license to carry a weapon in their vehicles to and from their workplaces," said Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth.

The Texas State Rifle Association supports the bill. However, it is opposed by the Texas Association of Business.

[villager]

1. the Red States are just a-burstin' with good ideas!

n/t

[rl6214]

2. I would have to agree with you

but then I live in Texas.

[villager]

3. Yes -- and Texas state government is currently *rife* with 'em!

n/t

[PavePusher]

4. Since your post lit up my Sarcasmometer....

would you care to explain why this is a bad idea?

[cleanhippie]

8. I don't know about "bursting" but this one certainly was a good one.

[villager]

10. I think this one lives quite in context with the others...

All part and parcel of the same world view, ideology, etc...

[lawodevolution]

17. That ideology is freedom.

[villager]

28. Yes, rightwingers have been schooled to carjack that phrase for their politics

n/t

[rl6214]

31. Rightwingers?

How about being honest and telling it like it is.

Freedom to be able to exercise our constitutional rights. Are you calling everyone that wants to do this rightwingers? Everyone here at DU that wants to exercise these rights is now a rightwinger according to you?

[villager]

49. Yeah -- like the exact same Texas legislature supporting this bill

banning "discrimination" against "Creationists:"

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/texas-bill-would-outlaw-discrimination-against-creationists

All part and parcel of the same legislative agenda. All of it.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. So? I can be with them on guns and against them on other stuff. N/T

[villager]

84. Their gun laws come from the same world view and mindset

n/t

[rl6214]

86. There are 19 Repub and 12 Dems

They ALL come from the same world view and mindset?

I'd say that's a pretty clear voice on what the people want, regardless of party.

[hack89]

34. A world view of respecting and protecting civil rights?

that's a world view I can get behind.

[spin]

19. The law has caused no problems in Florida. (n/t)

[DrDan]

5. more insane gun legislation . . . .

[X_Digger]

6. Do tell.. n/t

[oneshooter]

7. Why is it insane? Don't you trust your employees? n/t

[TexasProgresive]

18. Not all of them! n/t

[oneshooter]

22. If you can not trust them, then why are you employing them? n/t

[TexasProgresive]

30. I don't employ them- I am referring to my fellow employees. n/t

[cleanhippie]

9. Only insane to the ignorant ones...

[S_B_Jackson]

12. I wonder what Nebraska law says about guns in employers' parking lots?

Hmmmmmmmm
http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2441

If a person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or an employer in control of the property prohibits a permit holder from carrying a concealed handgun into or onto the place or premises and such place or premises are open to the public, a permit holder does not violate this section unless the person, persons, entity, or entities in control of the property or employer in control of the property has posted conspicuous notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in or on the place or premises or has made a request, directly or through an authorized representative or management personnel, that the permit holder remove the concealed handgun from the place or premises. A permit holder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle into or onto any place or premises does not violate this section so long as the handgun is not removed from the vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the place or premises. An employer may prohibit employees or other persons who are permit holders from carrying concealed handguns in vehicles owned by the employer.

Ya know, it sounds very similar to what Texas just passed....however could that have happened?

Edited to add ye olde linky-thingy

[DrDan]

37. Florida education reform is taking the same path as many other tea-bag led states

are you suggesting that simply following other states is a good thing?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

20. The law works well in Florida ...

perhaps the employers here treat their employees with respect.

[DrDan]

38. not sure I understand your point?

and as far as I know, Disney still does not allow it for employees that work at the park.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. You are confused by one-the-job or in-the-parking-lot.

Disney does not allow employees to carry weapons while at work. Most businesses don't either. Guns locked in their personal car in the company parking lot is all that is covered by the law. I am confident that Disney obeys the law in this respect.

[spin]

70. Disney has fought the law and might have an exception ...

if I remember correctly they tried to avoid rule by saying that they have a fireworks license. A test case might still be working its way through the court system.

The law does exempt certain employers:

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—

***snip***

(7) EXCEPTIONS.—The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:
(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.
(b) Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.
(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.
(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.
(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.
(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.
http://archive.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?m&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

While certain employers do not have to abide by the law, most do. It hasn't proved to be a problem.

[rl6214]

26. Might not be sane if you live in New York

but when I was in high school we used to drive to school with our rifles hanging in the back window of our trucks. Never had a problem. Now I wouldn't leave a gun out in the open in my vehicle now but hidden and locked away, not a problem.

So the only thing insane is your irrational fear of an inanimate object.

[DrDan]

39. not the gun I am concerned about . . .. but you knew that

[PavePusher]

51. So, the good people will still be good....

and the crazies still crazy.

So do tell... what exactly will the substantial change be?




Edited Subject for grammer and spelling. Got coffee?

[DrDan]

52. the crazies will now legally have their guns at a work site

[PavePusher]

63. And they weren't going to have them before?

Please, explain that mechanism?

Note that it will still be illegal to commit crimes with those guns.

Again, nothing has changed, except for the very people you don't have to worry about.

[rl6214]

87. If they were/are crazy, they aren't going to follow the law

anyway! If they are nuts and they want to have a gun in their car, they are going to. Now with this law, the law abiding citizen will be able to keep his/her gun in the car without a problem.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Please explain why it is insane.

In doing so please remember that several states already have this law and have had no problems.

[hack89]

35. Isn't it funny that as the insane gun legistlation has piled up over the years

gun violence has plummeted. Why, it is almost as if the American people can actually be trusted to exercise their civil rights responsibly.

Just a thought for you to carry forward.

[DrDan]

36. are you suggesting a connection? Perhaps you can provide a link.

[hack89]

40. FBI good enough for you?

No - I am not saying that more guns or laxer gun laws are directly responsible for less gun violence. The issue is much more complex than that. I am saying that there is direct evidence that more guns and laxer gun laws do not result in MORE gun violence. So if there is no harm caused, what's the problem?



http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[DrDan]

41. and you can guaratee "no harm"?

and of course you cannot show a direct correlation.

and all you can show are the trends from more guns, laxer laws, and gun violence. You cannot show a direct correlation.

Did you know that the more bars there are in a city, the more churches there are? Would you suggest that the number of churches is dependent on the number of bars? Or would it be because that the number of bars is dependent on the number of churches?

[hack89]

42. And your point is what?

you used the term "insane gun legislation". I assumed you used that specific phrasing because you believe that such laws are somehow harmful. Is that a correct assumption?

If such laws are harmful, what data can you show that provides a direct relationship between such laws (and more guns) and some actual harm to society?

Since my evidence clearly shows that gun violence has steadily declined for the past 20 years, while I cannot guarantee no harm, history indicates that it is a reasonable assumption that this law will not create harm to society. Especially when you consider that other states that have passed similar laws have had no problems.

We don't restrict civil rights without a demonstrable harm being proven. Fears of what might happen in the future don't meet that criteria.

[DrDan]

44. and it seems to me a "reasonable assumption" that guns are a danger

in the workplace. That they will create harm to society. As they will on school property.

no problems? are you kidding me. Google "Tucson shooting" and tell me the we don't have a gun problem.

[hack89]

45. Except when real evidence says otherwise.

Your gun problem is shrinking every year - in 1991 there were 14,373 murders committed with guns. In 2009 there were 9146.

Population goes up, gun ownership goes up, murders go down.

Tucson was a rare and isolated event - it doesn't change the simple fact that you have never been safer. And next year you will be even more safer.

[DrDan]

46. too many gun deaths - and Tucson was not that rare nor that isolated

it happens every year

[hack89]

47. But we are on the right track - right?

you do agree that gun violence is on a steady decline?

It would not be too hard to accelerate that decline:

1. Decriminalize or legalize most drugs
2. Focus the justice system on violent offenders. Hammer people for gun crimes.
3. Adequately fund mental health.


My point is your concern over specific laws is misguided. There are better ways to fix the "gun problem" without trampling on people's civil rights.

[DrDan]

50. but the right to guns does not trump one's right to safety

except with our USSC and NRA-bought-and-paid-for legislators

on edit - found this

http://forums.floridasportsman.com/forum/topic/disney-revises-guns-work-policy


Walt Disney World is revising its employee gun ban policy.

That's according to a company memo obtained Friday.

With the change, some Disney employees will be allowed to keep a gun locked in a car as long as the employee has a concealed-weapons permit, the gun isn't visible, and the weapon isn't taken out of the car.

The memo says the change only applies to employees who work at facilities outside the Walt Disney World Resort area.

[hack89]

55. There is no right to safety.

the right to bear arms is, on the other hand, an enumerated right.

Besides, you have never been safer. Perhaps your fear of guns is overblown.

[DrDan]

56. "life, . . . " - you know, part of the big 3?

also - here is a brief from a California law office

Although it is not generally known, we all have a constitutional right to safety. This right is not buried in some obscure constitutional amendment; it is found in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. This section of the State Constitution declares:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

http://www.toxictorts.com/art_right_to_safety.shtml

[hack89]

57. So not safety? Got it.

I agree I don't have the right to kill you - I suspect that is why murder is against the law. But since your safety from guns is increasing every year, I don't understand your angst.

[DrDan]

58. did you read it - the right to safety?

seems to be constitutional in California

[hack89]

64. It is a link from an ambulance chaser - do you have any actual case law?

"It is the only firm in California whose practice is devoted exclusively to the litigation of toxic injuries other than asbestos-related diseases."

"Although the right to pursue and obtain safety has been embodied in the California Constitution since its adoption, there are no cases interpreting this constitutional right."

"The constitutional right of Californians to pursue and obtain safety is an untapped source of rights that plaintiffs' attorneys should exploit on behalf of their clients"

[DrDan]

68. so the following is not part of the California constitution?

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

[hack89]

73. Is it also not defined by case law per your link?

What does "enjoying and defending life and liberty" mean?

Can I defend life and liberty by owning a gun? I take it be a pro-gun right among other things.

[DrDan]

76. the point is that there is a right to safety - at least in California

[hack89]

77. There is also a right to defend life. Sounds like self defense to me. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

81. So? People with CCWs are not a danger to you...

...except in you fevered imagination.

[DrDan]

83. why must you insult?

[GreenStormCloud]

93. The bill was passed in TEXAS, not CALIFORNIA.

The CA Constitution has no bearing on TX.

[cleanhippie]

78. The goalposts seem to be on wheels with him. They just keep moving and moving and moving...

[rl6214]

90. I read it and

my guns help ensure my safety. If you choose not to exercise this right, that is your decision, that does NOT give you or anyone else the right to limit my rights.

[DrDan]

59. please demonstrate how my safety is increasing from more guns

[hack89]

61. Every year the odds of you being a victim of violent crime decreases.

I didn't say it was directly because of more guns - please don't put words in my mouth. I said that more guns do not represent an increased threat to your safety. Population up, guns up, gun deaths down. The gun deaths down part would clue most people into the idea that they are safer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. We don't have to. All that is neccessary is to show that your safety has not decreased...

...and it hasn't. The number of homicides committed with guns has decreased at the same time both the population of, and the #

of guns in, the United States has increased. You can confirm this yourself by perusing the FBI's "Crime in the US" site.


Your anhedonia regarding the above matters is puzzling.

[Glassunion]

66. It is not. However, your safety is not decreasing from more guns either.

More guns does not = less crime
At the same time:
More guns does not = more crime

Right now gun ownership in the US is at an all time high, and we are at a 35 year low in violent crime.

[rl6214]

91. I don't see how my carrying a gun will increase your safety

because I carry mine to increase MY safety. I do not carry for you or to ensure your safety, I carry to ensure mine. I have no desire to play Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone coming to your aid to save you from whatever criminal. I carry to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones.

[hack89]

74. BTW - what does this have to do with Texas? nt

[PavePusher]

53. Your implied definitions of "rare" and "isolated" are not congruent with reality. n/t

[DrDan]

54. oh good Lord . . . .

btw, what is the NRA-recommended acceptable level of gun-related deaths these days?

or is it now represented in deaths per event?

[hack89]

60. We accept certain levels of death in many things

Driving, drinking, household chemicals, swimming pools kill thousands. Cars, poisoning and drowning kill many more kids then guns - why aren't you crusading to ban swimming pools?

Society, rightly or wrongly, seems to have certain death rates for certain things that it is willing to tolerate. That shouldn't be a major revelation considering there are nearly 130,000 accidental deaths in America every year. If you want to tackle the causes of accidental death in America, guns wouldn't even be in the top 5 (it would be about 7 or 8).

[DrDan]

62. swimming pools have a redeeming value

[hack89]

67. So do guns

Recreation, hunting, competition, self-defense.

A minuscule percentage of gun owners use their weapons to harm others. By that standard it is hard to argue that guns don't also have beneficial use. Why don't you concentrate on the criminals and leave the 99.99 percent of gun owners who use their weapons lawfully alone?

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. They have value as a source of exercise and perhaps a backup water supply.

They are also a pain in the ass to maintain, you need to keep potentially dangerous chemicals on hand if you have one, they are

hazardous to children (and to drunk and/or stupid adults), and if you don't maintain them you'll almost certainly have a fine

crop of potentially disease-bearing mosquitoes in warmer weather.


Seems like you are passing moral judgement on inanimate objects based on what you find acceptable, and not on demonstrable

harm.

[Atypical Liberal]

72. Right here.

Right here you reached the point in this debate that I have seen many times before - you just buried your head in the sand.

You were told that despite your feelings on the matter, firearm-related crime and deaths are on the decline.

You then replied with:

too many gun deaths - and Tucson was not that rare nor that isolated it happens every year

Ka-SPLONK! That's the sound of a head being thrust into sand.

The Tuscon shooting was rare and it was isolated and while they happen every year, they are happening less and less every year in spite of increasing population and increasing numbers of firearms in circulation.

We cannot make the claim that more guns equals less crime, but we can certainly debunk the notion that more guns equals more crime, because this is not happening here.

Note that it should be obvious that there are more important factors at play than simply population and numbers of firearms. Somalia has a fair population and lots of guns in circulation and it is hardly a crime-free utopia. But they also are suffering from the chaos of lawlessness and desperate poverty. We don't have that here.

The simple, obvious truth is that in a functioning, civilized society, most people obey the law because they have too much at stake to risk breaking it. They are busy chasing the American Dream, working day jobs and going to school trying to provide a good material life for themselves and their families. Guns or no guns, they are too busy engaging in the act of being a civilized citizen to be off committing crimes. That is why, even as the number of firearms in circulation increases, crime is not increasing in our society. It's still a good, functioning, civilized society.

[rl6214]

89. Cite the evidence

"and it seems to me a "reasonable assumption" that guns are a danger
in the workplace. That they will create harm to society. As they will on school property."

Don't go on "reasonable ASSumption". Until you can cite evidence of this happening, it is just an ASSumption.

[oneshooter]

75. In life there is no " guaratee "no harm"? Get over it. n/t

[rl6214]

88. Until YOU show a direct correlation showing that

as you imply, more guns will mean more crime, then there is "no harm".

"all you can show are the trends from more guns, laxer laws, and (less)gun violence". While one cannot show a direct correlation here, you also cannot show a direct correlation between more access to guns (guns legally in cars) and increase gun violence. Until you can, it's a good law.

[Hoopla Phil]

11. Great news.n/t

[aikoaiko]

13. GA and other states did this a few years back and all the chicken littles who promised blood....

... in the parking lots have been shown to been wrong. Very few problems have occurred.

[PavePusher]

16. Nononononono....

it was going to be blood in the cubicals, or on the assembly floor, or the mail-room or the break-room... or something.

Why, it seems like it was only yesterday...

[VoteProgressive]

23. "chicken littles" and "gun nuts". Why does this place do this? History I am missing?

[aikoaiko]

25. Do what? Fight back with a little verbal retaliation when mocked. Yes, I will.

Why the hell not? I've tried playing nice in the face of insults, but it gets old quick. I don't throw the first punch, but I'm willing to hit back.

[VoteProgressive]

29. Who called you a name? Which post?

[aikoaiko]

71. See above.

Laws aren't insane, people are. The poster's intent to verbally malign is clear.

[slackmaster]

15. Blood will soak into the floor mats!

:argh:

[lawodevolution]

21. I heard the CCW on campus bill was being considered today in the house committee

All the wannabe Hitlers, maid and Kim Jung il's out there are not going to like this

[lawodevolution]

27. It passed 5-3

Sorry for my iPhone typo up above

[DWC]

24. Texas = Right to Self Defense = My kind of State! n/t

[-..__...]

33. GO TEXAS!!!

:headbang:

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Workers vs. Business again.

The Texas State Rifle Association supports the bill. However, it is opposed by the Texas Association of Business.

Of course, it should come as no surprise to anyone on this forum that business interests are once again opposed to the interests of workers.

And yet, there is still hue and cry against this measure from progressives here.

[cleanhippie]

79. Great news, but it's unfortunate that Texas is so regressive about nearly everything else.

[rl6214]

92. Oh come on

I live in Texas and in my part of Texas (El Paso), Democrats rule. Not so much with the rest of the state.

[ileus]

82. Congrats citizens of Texas...You've done good.

[MicaelS]

85. Thank gawd....

I have been hoping we would get a bill like this one passed. Of course as the article states ". Last session, a similar bill passed the Senate but not in the House."

[GreenStormCloud]

94. The House ran out of time last year. It got there at the end of the session.

This year it was introduced on the first day of the session.