SB 766 Gun Range Protection Passes to Rick Perry

[Charles L. Cotton]

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start with a description of the specific sections and subsections of codes and statutes that are added, amended, and/or repealed.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 McCrary complains, are not listed because they were not changed, much less repealed, by SB766.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 Bills do not include current subsections of codes that are not amended or repealed by the bill.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.

 

[Bithabus]

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.

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Texas1911]

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 can see the reasoning for omitting it, but being unaware of it ... you can see how that would make one a bit uneasy.

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can see the reasoning for omitting it, but being unaware of it ... you can see how that would make one a bit uneasy.

You're right, posting an erroneous comparison can certainly confuse people who are not familiar with how bills are structured. It's clear that someone can mislead people with the proper bill format if that is their desire, but nothing was omitted in the sense of there being an option to include it. Bills are never drafted to include statutory language that isn't being amended or at least impacted by the bill. That's why you cannot place a current statute side-by-side with a bill that amends it and claim the bill reflects the complete statute.

Mr. McCrary must know this since he, as President of the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, drafted the open-carry bill. If he was not aware of this fact, then one must wonder why no attempt was made to confirm or allay his fears before posting a call to veto a critical bill. I am at a loss as to why he and his organization would try to have SB766 vetoed, unless the answer lies in his post that immediately followed his inaccurate post on OpenCarry.org once again blasting the TSRA and trying to discourage people from supporting it.

Although the 2011 Texas Legislative Session was the same length as all other sessions, it was still "short" in terms of what could be accomplished. We knew long before the session started that the budget crisis and redistricting would be a time hog, so we only filed three bills; campus-carry, employer parking lots, and range protection. We passed two of those and both are of critical importance to millions of Texans. (I worked on amending language for other bills on other subjects to ensure that they did not have intentional or unintentional impact on guns, or their owners or usage. These bills were not "ours.")

The employer parking lot bill allows anyone who legally possesses firearms and ammo to have them in their cars while at work, meaning they don't have to be disarmed and defenseless during their commute. (The only exception applies to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries where this protection applies only to CHL's.) The range protection bill protects every gun owner who wants to be able to have a place to shoot and can't do so on their own property. Of course we wanted to get campus-carry, but it has nevertheless been a great session in terms of the added protection we (NRA/TSRA) have brought to Texans in just two bills.

I also want to assure people that neither the NRA nor TSRA would ever sacrifice past gains and protections to gain new or different ones. We are often criticized for moving too slowly but that perception does not consider the need to move cautiously so as to protect what we already have while expanding gun rights. I would like to ask a favor of my fellow gun owners. When you read some outlandish claim about the TSRA or NRA, please take a moment to see if it even passes the smell test. Then check it out and learn the truth.

Hopefully, this issue has been put to rest and we can get to celebrating this session's accomplishments, and preparing for 2013.

Chas.

 

[Bithabus]

You're right, posting an erroneous comparison can certainly confuse people who are not familiar with how bills are structured. It's clear that someone can mislead people with the proper bill format if that is their desire, but nothing was omitted in the sense of there being an option to include it. Bills are never drafted to include statutory language that isn't being amended or at least impacted by the bill. That's why you cannot place a current statute side-by-side with a bill that amends it and claim the bill reflects the complete statute.

Mr. McCrary must know this since he, as President of the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, drafted the open-carry bill. If he was not aware of this fact, then one must wonder why no attempt was made to confirm or allay his fears before posting a call to veto a critical bill. I am at a loss as to why he and his organization would try to have SB766 vetoed, unless the answer lies in his post that immediately followed his inaccurate post on OpenCarry.org once again blasting the TSRA and trying to discourage people from supporting it.

Although the 2011 Texas Legislative Session was the same length as all other sessions, it was still "short" in terms of what could be accomplished. We knew long before the session started that the budget crisis and redistricting would be a time hog, so we only filed three bills; campus-carry, employer parking lots, and range protection. We passed two of those and both are of critical importance to millions of Texans. (I worked on amending language for other bills on other subjects to ensure that they did not have intentional or unintentional impact on guns, or their owners or usage. These bills were not "ours.")

The employer parking lot bill allows anyone who legally possesses firearms and ammo to have them in their cars while at work, meaning they don't have to be disarmed and defenseless during their commute. (The only exception applies to chemical manufacturing plants and refineries where this protection applies only to CHL's.) The range protection bill protects every gun owner who wants to be able to have a place to shoot and can't do so on their own property. Of course we wanted to get campus-carry, but it has nevertheless been a great session in terms of the added protection we (NRA/TSRA) have brought to Texans in just two bills.

I also want to assure people that neither the NRA nor TSRA would ever sacrifice past gains and protections to gain new or different ones. We are often criticized for moving too slowly but that perception does not consider the need to move cautiously so as to protect what we already have while expanding gun rights. I would like to ask a favor of my fellow gun owners. When you read some outlandish claim about the TSRA or NRA, please take a moment to see if it even passes the smell test. Then check it out and learn the truth.

Hopefully, this issue has been put to rest and we can get to celebrating this session's accomplishments, and preparing for 2013.

Chas.

This was the source of the confusion:

SECTION 5. Section 229.001, Local Government Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a) and (b) and adding Subsection (e) to read as follows: (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including Section 43.002 of this code and Chapter 251, Agriculture Code, a [A] municipality may not adopt regulations relating to: (1) the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, ammunition, or firearm supplies; or (2)the discharge of a firearm at a sport shooting range. (b) Subsection (a) does not affect the authority a municipality has under another law to: (1) require residents or public employees to be armed for personal or national defense, law enforcement, or another lawful purpose; (2) regulate the discharge of firearms within the limits of the municipality, other than at a sport shooting range; (3) regulate the use of property, the location of a business, or uses at a business under the municipality's fire code, zoning ordinance, or land-use regulations as long as the code, ordinance, or regulations are not used to circumvent the intent of Subsection (a) or Subdivision (5) of this subsection; (4) regulate the use of firearms in the case of an insurrection, riot, or natural disaster if the municipality finds the regulations necessary to protect public health and safety; (5) regulate the storage or transportation of explosives to protect public health and safety, except that 25 pounds or less of black powder for each private residence and 50 pounds or less of black powder for each retail dealer are not subject to regulation; [or] (6) regulate the carrying of a firearm by a person other than a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, at a: (A) public park; (B) public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body; (C) political rally, parade, or official political meeting; or (D) nonfirearms-related school, college, or professional athletic event; or (7)regulate the hours of operation of a sport shooting range, except that the hours of operation may not be more limited than the least limited hours of operation of any other business in the municipality other than a business permitted or licensed to sell or serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. (e)In this section, "sport shooting range" has the meaning assigned by Section 250.001.

It is reasonable to expect that many people would misunderstand this wording, and wonder what happened to the protections included in (c) and (d).

 

[Texas1911]

This was the source of the confusion:

It is reasonable to expect that many people would misunderstand this wording, and wonder what happened to the protections included in (c) and (d).

+1

 

[Charles L. Cotton]

This was the source of the confusion:

It is reasonable to expect that many people would misunderstand this wording, and wonder what happened to the protections included in (c) and (d).

I understand and I agree. But the general public typically doesn't read bills and people were confused only because someone who does, or at least should, know how to read bills posted a portion of SB766 next to current Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.001 and told everyone that the bill constituted the full §229.001. After doing so, he then used this erroneous comparison as a basis to attack the TSRA and call for a veto of SB766.

I am not the least bit critical of trusting people were deceived by the misinformation published and the ill-advised call for a veto. It wasn't their fault.

Chas.

 

[TheDan]

So does this bill mean Austin can't block another range from opening? It would be nice to have other ranges, but I kinda doubt the "good ole boy" network would allow that to happen.


Cotton vs McCrary... This little feud is going to hurt us all. Ya'll need to hug it out.

 

[Texas1911]

So does this bill mean Austin can't block another range from opening? It would be nice to have other ranges, but I kinda doubt the "good ole boy" network would allow that to happen.

I don't see anything like that in the provision, but I've been saying you could use it as a grounds to sue the Austin city council to rectify their position?

Cotton vs McCrary... This little feud is going to hurt us all. Ya'll need to hug it out.

Yep.

 

[txinvestigator]

So does this bill mean Austin can't block another range from opening? It would be nice to have other ranges, but I kinda doubt the "good ole boy" network would allow that to happen.


Cotton vs McCrary... This little feud is going to hurt us all. Ya'll need to hug it out.

The LSCDL is mad because the TSRA would not push for open carry. Because of that he has declared war on the TSRA. Mr Cotton is ONLY attempting to clarify the intential misleading and lies of others.

 

[TheDan]

some words about stuff

Welcome back, man