Charles L. Cotton
Member
The final version has this verbage:
SECTION 5. Section 229.001, Local Government Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a) and (b) and adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
Meaning, it's not amending or editing sections (c) and (d) which are the omitted sections. It's just amending (a) and (b) to include the shooting range adders and the clause (e) to the end of it.
This is correct. Mr. Shane McCrary, President of Lone Star Citizens Defense League, a/k/a MR REDNECK has posted an erroneous claim on OpenCarry.org claiming that SB766 removes the protections found in Tex. Gov't Code §229.01(c) and (d). Unfortunately, this claim is being used as a basis for the LSCDL to call for a veto of SB766.
All bills start with a description of the specific sections and subsections of codes and statutes that are added, amended, and/or repealed. It defines the scope of the changes being made. This portion of SB766 (quoted by Texas1911) makes it clear that the only changes to Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.001 were amendments to Subsections (a) and (b) and the addition of a new Subsection (e). Subsections (c) and (d) of which Mr. McCrary complains, are not listed because they were not changed, much less repealed, by SB766. The scope statement appears in Section 5 of the Bill on page 6 because that is where the amendments to §229.001 begin. SB766 also amends sections of the Tex. Civil Prac. & Rem. Code and those appear earlier in the bill. (The scope statement for those amendments can be seen at the beginning of the bill.)
The problem some people are having is that Mr. MrCrary posted the current §229.001 and compared it to SB766 which does not contain everything in §229.001. He is erroneously treating the bill as though it reflects everything that will appear in §229.001 after applying the changes in SB766. Bills are drafted to show the sections that are being amended and others that are directly impacted. Bills do not include current subsections of codes that are not amended or repealed by the bill. That's why subsections (c) and (d) do not appear in SB766.
I have been writing legislation for over 30 years and I know how to do it without harming past gains. I wrote SB766 and I can assure everyone it does not come close to doing what Mr. McCrary claims, nor is that any reason to answer LSCDL's call to veto it. I would hope LSCDL members would call on their leadership to retract their call for a veto of SB766 and to strongly support it.
Without SB766, ranges would have continued to be put out of business by frivolous lawsuits they couldn't afford to defend, while others are put out of business by unnecessary and burdensome regulation by local governments.
Chas.