Today, the Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 54, authored by Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), which admonishes legislators in DC to "cease and desist" attempting to pass Federal laws such as Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, otherwise known as HR 54 on Capitol Hill. If you haven't read HR 54 yet, do yourself a favor and take a peek - it's not pretty.
Fortunately, the Holt bill isn't getting much traction on the Hill, but that didn't stop the Senate from adopting the resolution with a 25-6 vote.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
The latest on the campus CHL bill
SB 1164 has been reported favorably without amendments out of a formal meeting by the House Committee on Public Safety. As a result, there will be no public hearing in the House to discuss SB 1164 as there was in the Senate.
After the bill is printed on a committee report and distributed, its next destination is the Calendars Committee for scheduling to be read and debated on the House floor.
The clock is ticking, though - the 81st Regular Session of the Texas Legislature ends on Monday, June 1.
After the bill is printed on a committee report and distributed, its next destination is the Calendars Committee for scheduling to be read and debated on the House floor.
The clock is ticking, though - the 81st Regular Session of the Texas Legislature ends on Monday, June 1.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Texas Senate passes campus CHL bill
It's official - by a vote of 20-11, the Senate has passed SB 1164, which will allow students with valid Texas CHL licenses to carry concealed handguns at university dorms and classrooms.
SB 1164 now heads for the House, where it will be read for the first time and then referred to committee by the Speakers as per legislative procedure.
Stay tuned...
SB 1164 now heads for the House, where it will be read for the first time and then referred to committee by the Speakers as per legislative procedure.
Stay tuned...
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
SB 1164 passes Senate hurdle, may face final vote tomorrow
SB 1164, the Senate version of the campus concealed-carry bill, has passed to engrossment as amended by a reported vote of 20-10. Look for a final Senate vote on the bill as early as tomorrow, after which it's the House's turn.
Monday, May 11, 2009
TX House places bill for campus concealed-carry on calendar
HB 1893, "Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns on the campuses of institutions of higher education," has been placed on the General State Calendar by the Texas House today. Click here to see the calendar.
The Senate version, SB 1164, is still pending in the Senate Committee on State Affairs as of today.
The Senate version, SB 1164, is still pending in the Senate Committee on State Affairs as of today.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Does HB 1863 = unregulated full-auto in Texas?
Yesterday, I started discussing Texas House Bill 1863, introduced by Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler). Since then, an important question has surfaced on some online pro-RKBA forums: if passed, would HB 1863 make it legal to possess an unregistered machine gun that was manufactured on Texas soil? Would the National Firearms Act of 1934 be rendered inoperative for any Texas-made firearm that would otherwise be restricted under NFA?
To answer this question, we need to consult Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code.
Sec. 46.05(a) explicitly states that an individual has broken Texas law "if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells" any weapon designated as a "prohibited weapon" by the Texas penal Code. Sec. 46.05(a)(2) further states that a machine gun, which is defined in Sec. 46.01(9) as "any firearm that is capable of shooting more than two shots automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger," is designated as a "prohibited weapon" under Texas law. However, Sec. 46.05(c) states that compliance with the provisions of NFA "is a defense to prosecution," meaning that any Texas civilian who obtains the proper NFA clearance may legally own a machine gun in the State.
The problem with claiming legal private ownership of an unregistered machine gun under Berman's proposed legislation is that while Sec. 2003.004 of HB 1863 does not exempt machine guns from the provisions of the bill, HB 1863 does not revise or invalidate Sec. 46.05, which is part of the Texas Penal Code and not a Federal statue. This means that any unregistered machine gun in civilian hands, whether or not it was manufactured in the State of Texas, is still subject to the provisions of Sec 46.05, which makes no allowances for civilian ownership in Texas unless predicated by compliance with Sec. 46.05(c).
Contrast the Texas Penal Code with state law in Illinois and Utah to comprehend the significance of the wording of Sec. 46.05. Subsection 24-1(a)(7) and Subsection 24-2(c)(5) of Illinois 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 make no provision for civilian ownership of machine guns in the State of Illinois under the National Firearms Act, while Title 76, Chapter 10 of the Utah Code does not appear to contain any state laws forbidding civilian ownership of machine guns except for restrictions on possession by anyone younger than 18 years of age as defined in Section 409.4(b). In light of the context of the state laws of Illinois and Utah, and in consideration of the fact that Texas House Bill 1863 does not invalidate any portion of Sec. 46.05 of the Texas Penal Code, any Texan who tries to assert civilian ownership of an unregistered machine gun manufactured in Texas may possibly still face an arrest warrant and felony prosecution under state law.
The context of Sec. 46.05 therefore becomes a matter for legal historians to consider. If one can successfully argue that the provisions of Sec. 46.05 were inserted into Texas state law only after the National Firearms Act of 1934 was signed into law, a case could possibly be made for extensive revision of Sec. 46.05 in order to comply with HB 1863 and defend civilian possession of unregistered Texas-made automatic weapons from prosecution. On the other hand, if one can demonstrate that Texas legislators enacted their own state prohibition on civilian possession of machine guns before NFA was enacted, arguments in favor of unregulated civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured in Texas will be severely undermined, even in light of the provisions of HB 1863.
Any insight into the timeline of firearms prohibitions in the context of Texas state law will therefore be greatly appreciated. Of course, general discussion over the scope and authority of HB 1863 is always welcome.
To answer this question, we need to consult Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code.
Sec. 46.05(a) explicitly states that an individual has broken Texas law "if he intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells" any weapon designated as a "prohibited weapon" by the Texas penal Code. Sec. 46.05(a)(2) further states that a machine gun, which is defined in Sec. 46.01(9) as "any firearm that is capable of shooting more than two shots automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger," is designated as a "prohibited weapon" under Texas law. However, Sec. 46.05(c) states that compliance with the provisions of NFA "is a defense to prosecution," meaning that any Texas civilian who obtains the proper NFA clearance may legally own a machine gun in the State.
The problem with claiming legal private ownership of an unregistered machine gun under Berman's proposed legislation is that while Sec. 2003.004 of HB 1863 does not exempt machine guns from the provisions of the bill, HB 1863 does not revise or invalidate Sec. 46.05, which is part of the Texas Penal Code and not a Federal statue. This means that any unregistered machine gun in civilian hands, whether or not it was manufactured in the State of Texas, is still subject to the provisions of Sec 46.05, which makes no allowances for civilian ownership in Texas unless predicated by compliance with Sec. 46.05(c).
Contrast the Texas Penal Code with state law in Illinois and Utah to comprehend the significance of the wording of Sec. 46.05. Subsection 24-1(a)(7) and Subsection 24-2(c)(5) of Illinois 720 ILCS 5/Art. 24 make no provision for civilian ownership of machine guns in the State of Illinois under the National Firearms Act, while Title 76, Chapter 10 of the Utah Code does not appear to contain any state laws forbidding civilian ownership of machine guns except for restrictions on possession by anyone younger than 18 years of age as defined in Section 409.4(b). In light of the context of the state laws of Illinois and Utah, and in consideration of the fact that Texas House Bill 1863 does not invalidate any portion of Sec. 46.05 of the Texas Penal Code, any Texan who tries to assert civilian ownership of an unregistered machine gun manufactured in Texas may possibly still face an arrest warrant and felony prosecution under state law.
The context of Sec. 46.05 therefore becomes a matter for legal historians to consider. If one can successfully argue that the provisions of Sec. 46.05 were inserted into Texas state law only after the National Firearms Act of 1934 was signed into law, a case could possibly be made for extensive revision of Sec. 46.05 in order to comply with HB 1863 and defend civilian possession of unregistered Texas-made automatic weapons from prosecution. On the other hand, if one can demonstrate that Texas legislators enacted their own state prohibition on civilian possession of machine guns before NFA was enacted, arguments in favor of unregulated civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured in Texas will be severely undermined, even in light of the provisions of HB 1863.
Any insight into the timeline of firearms prohibitions in the context of Texas state law will therefore be greatly appreciated. Of course, general discussion over the scope and authority of HB 1863 is always welcome.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Texas House Bill 1863: So crazy that it might just become law?
Okay, folks, brace yourselves for this one.
Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill on February 26 of this year that apparently went unnoticed by many Texans until this month, when it was reported favorably by the House Committee on Public Safety on Friday, May 1 with 5 Ayes and not a single Nay. The Committee report was sent to Calendars yesterday, and the bill could possibly be heading for a House vote.
The bill in question is HB 1863. Put simply, if passed and signed into law, this bill would make any firearms, firearm parts, or ammunition made and sold in Texas exempt from all Federal firearms regulation. If you legally own a pistol that was made in Texas, as long as you keep it within Texas, you would not have to undergo an NICS background check or adhere to any Federal laws regarding that particular pistol.
Text of HB 1863 (PDF format):
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB01863H.pdf
History of HB 1863 in the Texas Legislature:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1863
The reason for this bill? Rep. Berman explained in a Fort Worth Star-Telegram article that HB 1863 "tests our sovereignty in relationship to the federal government, and it would attract new small gun manufacturers to the state to manufacture certain types of weapons and ammunition that are only used in intrastate commerce." This may be yet another push for state soveriegnty, echoing Gov. Rick Perry's April 15 speech in which he hinted at Texas secession from the Union. Me, I'm not too keen on this whole secession business. Texas already tried being an independent nation, and we gave it the old college try, but we fare much better as a state than as a republic.
Every part of a particular firearm would have to be made in Texas in order for HB 1863 to exempt the gun from Federal law, and the gun could never leave Texas soil.
I'll try to follow this in greater detail over the next day or so.
Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill on February 26 of this year that apparently went unnoticed by many Texans until this month, when it was reported favorably by the House Committee on Public Safety on Friday, May 1 with 5 Ayes and not a single Nay. The Committee report was sent to Calendars yesterday, and the bill could possibly be heading for a House vote.
The bill in question is HB 1863. Put simply, if passed and signed into law, this bill would make any firearms, firearm parts, or ammunition made and sold in Texas exempt from all Federal firearms regulation. If you legally own a pistol that was made in Texas, as long as you keep it within Texas, you would not have to undergo an NICS background check or adhere to any Federal laws regarding that particular pistol.
Text of HB 1863 (PDF format):
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/pdf/HB01863H.pdf
History of HB 1863 in the Texas Legislature:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB1863
The reason for this bill? Rep. Berman explained in a Fort Worth Star-Telegram article that HB 1863 "tests our sovereignty in relationship to the federal government, and it would attract new small gun manufacturers to the state to manufacture certain types of weapons and ammunition that are only used in intrastate commerce." This may be yet another push for state soveriegnty, echoing Gov. Rick Perry's April 15 speech in which he hinted at Texas secession from the Union. Me, I'm not too keen on this whole secession business. Texas already tried being an independent nation, and we gave it the old college try, but we fare much better as a state than as a republic.
Every part of a particular firearm would have to be made in Texas in order for HB 1863 to exempt the gun from Federal law, and the gun could never leave Texas soil.
I'll try to follow this in greater detail over the next day or so.
The times, they are a-changin'
Imagine my surprise when I saw this article in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram:
http://www.star-telegram.com/238/story/1359894.html
I found the following excerpt to be the most significant:
Even an assault-weapons ban is not the political "sure thing" it once was. An April 23-26 poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.
I would like to get a better look at the poll and the methodology used, of course, but let that number sink in for just a moment. 53 percent. Possibly the lowest number on record.
How on Earth is the Brady Campaign going to spin this?
http://www.star-telegram.com/238/story/1359894.html
I found the following excerpt to be the most significant:
Even an assault-weapons ban is not the political "sure thing" it once was. An April 23-26 poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today.
I would like to get a better look at the poll and the methodology used, of course, but let that number sink in for just a moment. 53 percent. Possibly the lowest number on record.
How on Earth is the Brady Campaign going to spin this?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Welcome, fellow Texas Democrats!
Please join me in launching the official blog for the Gun Owners Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party. The mission of our Caucus is to represent the political interests and views of Democratic gun owners in the State of Texas.
We affirm that civilian ownership of firearms is essential to the preservation of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans, including our fellow Texans. If you are a Democrat who feels the same way about gun ownership, welcome aboard.
If you have suggestions for what you'd like to see on this blog, don't be shy. Thank you for stopping by!
Daniel Barnett
Chair, Gun Owners Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party
We affirm that civilian ownership of firearms is essential to the preservation of civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans, including our fellow Texans. If you are a Democrat who feels the same way about gun ownership, welcome aboard.
If you have suggestions for what you'd like to see on this blog, don't be shy. Thank you for stopping by!
Daniel Barnett
Chair, Gun Owners Caucus of the Texas Democratic Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
