TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:He was in Dallas today signing transportation bills that benefit north Dallas. I suspect he'll do a similar public signing of the gun bills, probably in Austin.

He should sign SB273 in front of the 30.06 sign at Austin City Hall, HB910 in front of Acevado's office at APD Headquarters, and SB11 on the steps of the UT tower building.

Or would that be spiking the football?

Can't imagine he won't sign these but if he doesn't, it becomes law after 10 days, I believe. Only way to stop it now is a veto, and I'd be beyond stunned if he did that.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:It's really sad they are taking that stance on it. This is a big step forward, maybe not as big as we want or need, but it's a good one.

Agreed. No way this is not a huge victory for gun rights, especially considering this thing was literally minutes away from dying just a few days ago. And I don't think the "loophole" is going to be as large as many anti's are trying to spin it. From what I saw of the debate, Legislative intent is pretty clear and I don't think they'll tolerate a whole lot of nonsense. We'll just have to see.

I hate that opt-out provision because we all know it will abused but if that's what it takes to get this done, so be it and we can work on a fix next session.

Like OC, just get something on the books!

RoyGBiv wrote:There's lots of head shaking to go around, but, IMO the single biggest facepalm goes to Senator Huffines for failing to Amend HB 910 to be EXACTLY, word-for-word, punctuation-for-punctuation, the same as the version received from the House. Major fail.

Hopefully it can still be salvaged.

I've read in other places that even if Huffines had added back the amendment word for word, the bill would have still had to go back to the House for concurrence because it had been altered in committee (i.e. when Huffman took it out before sending it to the floor) and therefore at that point was no longer an "identical" bill regardless of what happened from then on.

I don't know if that's true or not but if it is, it would make Huffine's error in language - if in fact that was an error - a moot point I guess.

K5GU wrote:I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.

It was a monumentally stupid question. You either go through the metal detector line or you go through the CHL line (the card they swipe is your actual license). I have no idea why a CHL holder openly carrying would want to go through the metal detector, but yes, if they did I would think DPS would have more than sufficient grounds to ask to see the CHL, and then direct that person to the CHL line if they have one (and arrest him or her if they don't). You have to show it anyway to go through the CHL line.

Utterly pointless line of inquiry that did nothing but waste time, cause confusion and provide fodder for the other side.

NotRPB wrote:I think an argument is something like:

Government gives Taxpayer dollar grants for research and stuff, to "Private" schools

Students are given taxpayer funded grants, to give to "private" schools

At what point, how many public tax dollars must be given before the public paying gets a say in what goes on there?

These are not Mom & Pop "private" grocery stores that aren't getting public taxpayer money ... we are talking about millions & millions & millions of public tax dollars pouring into those "private" colleges.
================

That's an argument that can be made, but not right now.

Can't the Senate invoke cloture and cut off a filibuster? Isn't that why Patrick got some rule changed at the beginning of the session so he didn't have to worry about such things?

I might be mixing the state/federal Senate.

Any reason why Phillips can't or shouldn't call for the concurrence vote on HB910 right now?

The Wall wrote:He voted for the amendment because he knew the bill would pass and he didn't want any profiling of blacks by law enforcement.

No, he made a big to-do directly to Estes about how he was proud of his F rating from the NRA but that he was going to vote for the bill, and he did, as did several other Dems, on the 2nd reading. But they voted no on third reading.

I can understand why he'd vote yes on the amendment but no on the bill, but that's not what he did, at least not on the 2nd reading.

v7a wrote:That vote count is wrong, btw. Apparently Ellis got recorded as voting YES on final passage but he's going to correct with the clerk to NO.

Why did Ellis (and most of the Dems) vote yes on the second reading but no on final 3rd reading? Is that common?

pdxmale wrote:I am NOT so sure ---- doesn't the house have to approve the amendment?

No, the amendment that caused all the problems was just added back in on the Senate floor, so the Senate passed bill is identical to the House bill. No need to go back to the House.

Getting concerned that we're about to fumble the ball at the 1 yard line.