TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:

v7a wrote:This is the 30.06 language change:

[ Image ]

So on Jan 1, every current 30.06 sign becomes non-compliant because they're not using the new language?

AAAAWWWW. And AMC just spent all that money to make its signs compliant.

K5GU wrote: After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.

That's the historical precedent. An exposed weapon has always been a symbol of power/citizenship. Concealed weapons were always something for people up to no good like thieves, con men, gamblers, ladies of negotiable affection, and lawyers (Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't ban me Charles). Which is why I HATE the term "Constitutional Carry." Yes, I know that's gonna get me flamed. But in the context the Constitution was written, they had these ideas in mind. Original Intent, I believe, was to allow all citizens to openly carry as a symbol of the new power structure. Concealed weapons were kinda taboo. So I don't have a problem with states regulating concealed carry*. But unlicensed open carry should be a the norm. Because if you're up to something you want to appear weak and harmless. Cops know this.

When they (LEOs) see a $50-$200 holster and a guy walking calmly with his family they aren't gonna say, "hmmm... PERP!" ...unless they have no option because of a CLEO's directives.


* and if the state wants to allow concealment with no licence, I'm cool with that. They've made their choice of regulations. None.

sugar land dave wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

DMN Politics ‏@DMNPolitics 2m2 minutes ago
Open carry's passage seems likely, after key lawmakers strip amendment opposed by police | @tombenning http://share.d-news.co/OHY1TUS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #txlege

Man this has been a roller coaster ride!

Yes sir, it sure has. I'm pretty much numb about it now. Won't get too up or down until the session ends or the Governor signs it.

Imagine how Charles feels after doing this for years!

All I know is this is my 3rd Session and with each one I pay closer attention and learn more. I'm TRULY taken aback by this one. Maybe I didn't pay close enough attention last time. Maybe I wasn't as engaged. Or maybe, as I hope, this is one was just uglier and as Tea Partiers and Amateurs become vets, they'll be less like spoiled adolescents and more like the unhinged teens I expected.

On a positive note, the procedural workings were more prominent this time so I really learned how they can play silly buggers with these bills. Not that it's a positive thing, but I did learn a lot. Enough that I won't be ordering sausage for a while.

On a related note: Wouldn't it have been cool to have live video feeds when they carried sword canes and respect was something you did not lose?

NotRPB wrote:I just got back in the house from supper ... sort of lost where we are because
I know dutton/huffines dropped in cmttee, but lost as to where we are this minute as far as when house/Senate vote on cmttee report ... today? they are voting today on some Cmttee reports or tomorrow?

Guess I'm asking how long before eligible, or where do I look> (Ate too much to think straight)
Were votes in Full Floors done while I was away?
confused

HB910
H Senate appoints conferees-reported 05/28/2015
H Senate grants request for conf comm-reported 05/28/2015
S Conference committee report filed 05/28/2015

In another thread, reporters are saying as early as Friday. But I still don't think we've seen the actual text so all is up in the air.

juno106 wrote: Yes, I suppose as a Monday morning quarterback, it is easy to now look back. But Huffman was Chair, and in a position of leadership. As Sen Ellis is famous for saying, [paraphrase] "I may not know much, but I know how to count [the votes]". I would expect as much from someone in a position of leadership. Huffman "should" have known better, or not accepted the responsibility of being Chair.

She was counting the votes. And she believed they WERE NOT THERE. It's her job to get the bill to the floor (or keep bad ones from it). She knew (or heavily suspected) that the same parade of horribles was going to be thrown up at a Dutton amended bill as was done in the house for a Huffines amended bill.

If it stayed a Dutton amendment in the senate, the votes you are counting for passage in the senate would have melted away like they did in the house. Dems and LEOs were already out and telling everyone that the bill needed to die. Texas is NOT the state to go toe-to-toe with LEOs.

The House HAD to pass the bill. It had no choice or OC was dead there. They counted on the Senate to fix it. They didn't. Now here we are. You can blame Huffman, but you fall into the trap that Huffines wants you to fall into. Blaming ANYONE else but the man who played poker and lost. He tried to bluff with 10 high and got spanked. Would have been a nice win to put on his campaign posters. But when you get beat with a 10 high, who remembers that? He SHOULD have played ball but the reward was too great and the risks (personal) too small.

CJ and Stickland SHOULD have kept their mouths shut.

Kory SHOULD have... Well... Not been Kory. There's a lot of SHOULD to shovel.

Our side better get its SHOULD together by '17.

jmra wrote:

juno106 wrote:Ok, I guess I can see your point.

I respectfully disagree, but I can see the argument to be made.

I will continue to argue that this is all Huffman's fault, as if the Dutton amendment was left in, the full Senate would have passed HB910 (as evidenced by the fact that they passed HB910 with the Huffines amendment), and it would have been off to the Governor, with no stops needed back at the House.

I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.

jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house

We will never know because Huffines is an idiot.

No. If he were an idiot, he could have be persuaded to take the amendment down with some other sop or trinket. He's a vainglory politician looking for a promotion. He knows if it passed he get's a boost. If not, who's going to remember this come '16? Besides us wonks, no one. Charles has listed the times politicians have paid the price for stopping 2A legislation and it's humorously nonexistent.

shootnfish wrote:

Ruark wrote:If I'm understanding it correctly, it's dead meat. It will never survive the filibusters. Tell me I'm wrong.

It depends on how soon it comes up for a vote. In the Senate, with the current rules, long filibusters are very difficult. There is no eating, drinking, going to the bathroom, sitting or even leaning on anything for the duration.

I do forget these are TRUE filibusters and not the US Senate kind of "Implied Filibusters".

mojo84 wrote:This kind of stuff doesn't help.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/ ... clock.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some people just don't get it.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

BigGuy wrote: Point Of Order!

Don't say that! Don't even think it!

IF (I don't think they did but if) they removed the amendment, you can BET there will be one.

BigGuy wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

arthurcw wrote:Would these be the same reporters who see an "ASSAULT WEAPON" every time a Hi-point is used?

I don't believe your rhetorical question is germane to the thread.

Point Of Order!

MAN! And I Chubbed the heck out you earlier! YOU LIED TO ME! *Raises fists*

Would these be the same reporters who see an "ASSAULT WEAPON" every time a Hi-point is used?

Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.