Texas House Bill HB3371

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Relating to the regulation of certain battery-charged fences by municipalities and counties.

Impact

The introduction of HB3371 modifies existing laws by limiting the regulatory authority of local governments over the use of battery-charged fences. It forbids municipalities and counties from requiring additional permits for their installation, as long as the fences adhere to the established criteria. This change is anticipated to facilitate the use of such fences in non-residential areas while ensuring that they remain compliant with safety and operational standards recognized at a national level.

Summary

House Bill 3371 addresses the regulation of battery-charged fences by municipalities and counties in Texas. The bill aims to standardize the rules concerning the installation and operation of these security features, ensuring that local authorities do not impose additional restrictions beyond those stipulated in the bill itself. It specifically outlines the conditions under which battery-charged fences can be used, including specifications related to height, signage, and operational standards, which aligns with the guidelines set by the International Electrotechnical Commission.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment around HB3371 appears to be supportive among those concerned with property security, as it gives clarity and assurance to property owners about their ability to use battery-charged fences without facing excessive regulatory hurdles. However, some local officials may view the bill as an overreach by the state, potentially undermining local government authority and the ability to tailor regulations to meet community-specific needs.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding the bill include concerns about the potential risks associated with battery-charged fences, particularly how they might affect the safety of surrounding areas where such fencing is deployed. Opponents may argue that the bill could lead to a lack of local discretion in addressing unique community safety concerns and the balancing act between private security measures and public safety regulations. The debate illustrates tensions between state-level preemption of local controls and the rights of municipalities to self-regulate based on community preferences.