TexasCHLforum.com

IMHO, you shouldn't have been...

We'll see what 2017 will bring...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?

Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.

Chas.

I was kidding folks.

Chas.

Or...

perhaps the blind bank account owner with the atm card is sitting in the passenger seat directly behind the driver...

or...

the blind college student is meeting another student on a certain floor of the parking garage...

In all seriousness, there is at least one totally blind individual with a TX CHL.

New provisions to require oral notification are an interesting twist as to how 30.06 / 30.07 notice can be provided.

This is a real issue.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?

Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.

Chas.

Irrelevant that she voted against the same amendment that a majority of HOUSE members could not support on the second go-round.

There never should have been a "second go-round".

She had the opportunity, by being in a position of leadership to leave in the Dutton amendment in spite of pressure, and preserve the opportunity for the full Senate to pass HB910, and then send it directly to the Governor.

By stripping Dutton, she guaranteed that it would have to go back to the House. She had to know there was risk involved in this.

And that is my core argument, her actions precluded any chance of HB910 going directly to the Governor, and her actions guaranteed it having to go back to the House.

And we all know how well that worked out.

The Annoyed Man wrote:In other words, you can't fault Huffman. SHE voted AGAINST the same amendment that a majority of HOUSE members could not support on the second go-round. Now, if you've got a shred of curiosity, you could ask, "why would THAT be?" You can bet that it is one (or both) of two things: 1) the Huffines Amendment was worded in a way that gave it a somewhat different meaning than the Dutton Amendment; and/or 2) those eleven representatives (and the rest of them as well) were under ENORMOUS pressure from law enforcement not to pass it as is.......and they had a chance to do something about it.

Respectfully disagree.

By removing Dutton, it precluded any chance at going to directly to the Governor.

By removing Dutton, it guaranteed going back to the House, for a concurrence vote.

NorthTexas wrote:You may disagree, but to me, that seemed the prudent and responsible decision - strip a now controversial amendment so that the underlying bill with otherwise wide support can breeze through the legislative process, vs. leave the controversial amendment attached and possibly have it get bogged down with attacks and semi-filibusters (as we saw with Huffines' amendment), and possibly even lose the Senate vote.

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.

NorthTexas wrote:It's easy to look back now, seeing that the Senate did indeed vote for Huffines' amendment, and claim there was no rational basis for Huffman to strip out the similar Dutton amendment. However, at the time, and considering the controversy, there was no way to know, and I believe she made the move that was in our best interests - work to minimize risks to the bill so we can get something passed, instead of risking everything and possibly ending up with nothing.

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

You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

NorthTexas wrote:Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.

it WOULDN'T have gone to the House ! it WOULD have gone to the Governor.

So, your point is?

jmra wrote:

juno106 wrote:...or

Huffman could have left in the Dutton amendment, there would have been no need for the Huffines amendment, and HB910 would have gone straight to the Gov instead of House concurrence.

Hate seeing Huffines being blamed for Huffman's blunder...

And it may have well suffered the same fate it did in the house.

...or

Huffman could have left in the Dutton amendment, there would have been no need for the Huffines amendment, and HB910 would have gone straight to the Gov instead of House concurrence.

Hate seeing Huffines being blamed for Huffman's blunder...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Callaway wrote:Not sure if credible...

Chuck Lindell ‏@chucklindell 2m2 minutes ago
Sen. @DonHuffines says he is disappointed his police-stop amendment got cut but, "I'm going to go along with the will of the body." #txlege

The feckless idiot could have gone along with the will of the body and pulled his amendment down while Huffman was cleaning his plow.......but he didn't. All of this lays squarely at his feet.