I received a letter from TSRA over the weekend.  As is typical, it was soliciting donations, but it was interesting in that it gave the 2005 legislative priorities for TSRA.  One thing in Texas law that’s always bugged me is that there is no provision for vehicle carry.  TSRA aims to correct this problem during this session by introducing a measure extending the definition of “private property” from your home to your vehicle.  We saw a move in this direction during the last session with a new law that made motor homes private property so they would be exempt from the general restrictions on carrying handguns “on or about your person.” 

Some other items of interest (verbatim from the letter):

• Extend the length of a CHL renewal from 4 years to 5—and keep the fee the same.
• Expand access to “Non-resident” CHLs, so frequent visitor (from states without CHL reciprocity with Texas) can legally carry while traveling in Texas.
• Reduce the CHL “replacement fee” from $25 to $10.  And expand the payment options.
• Make the fact that you have a CHL confidential and private—not a matter of public record.
• Extend the CHL renewal period (now one year) for active deployed military personnel.
• Eliminate CHL range requirements for military personnel with similar official training.
• Stop cities from practicing the hostile annexation of hunting lands—which limits our hunting areas
• Monitoring of a hot issue that may become law: halting the discharge of firearms in riverbeds.

That last one has me a bit puzzled.  Below the highlighted text it says the following:

Large ranchers want to stop anyone from shooting in a riverbed—below the line of vegetation.  If this hotbed issue becomes law, it would drastically curtail the freedoms we enjoy for duck and fowl hunting.

I’m not sure I understand this one.  Couldn’t a rancher who wanted to stop someone from shooting just post their land as off-limits to hunters?  Or is there something special about a riverbed?  For that matter, why would just “large ranchers” push for this?

One other issue I wish they’d take up would be to modify the way court “premises” are handled with regards to CHLs.  When the law was changed to prevent cities from posting public property with 30.06 signs, the wording about how courts are handled was also changed.  Unfortunately, it ended up placing the entire building off-limits, even if the court inhabits only a small section of the building.  The law needs to be changed to specify that only the court offices themselves are off limits to prevent cities and counties from arbitrarily and maliciously placing court small or temporary courts in buildings that otherwise wouldn’t have them.  Further, I’d like to see a requirement for a secure storage area at all such locations.