looks like NRA got it right

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
2firfun50
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Little Elm Tx
Contact:

looks like NRA got it right

#1

Post by 2firfun50 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:29 pm

No new additions to the special session.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/06/13/perr ... l-session/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#2

Post by Cedar Park Dad » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:36 pm

So can somone summarzie what was actually passed and signed into law again in both the main and this special session? I wouldn't trust any bill until its actually signed.
Edited because I type like a drunken nearsighted monkey (which is pretty accurate actually)
Last edited by Cedar Park Dad on Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#3

Post by JKTex » Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:49 pm

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So summary what and signed again?
:headscratch Could you rephrase that question? :cool:


jerry_r60
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:47 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#4

Post by jerry_r60 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:33 pm

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So can somone summarzie what was actually passed and signed into law again in both the main and this special session? I wouldn't trust any bill until its actually signed.
Edited because I type like a drunken nearsighted monkey (which is pretty accurate actually)
There were a couple that were either signed or "signed by default", they passed the 10 day period without signature or veto so they become law. Several of these that say "Sent to the Governor" I think reach their default date this weekend. They had 20 days as I recall because they occured in the last week of the session or something like that.

Here is a list of the ones I was tracking that made it:

HB 48 Last Action: 05/25/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the procedure under which a person may renew a license to carry a concealed handgun.

HB 333 Last Action: 05/20/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to requiring notice of a hotel's firearms policy and other guest policies; providing a criminal penalty.

HB 1862 Last Action: 05/27/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with respect to a switchblade knife.

HB 3142 Last Action: 05/27/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to handguns used to demonstrate proficiency in handgun use for purposes of obtaining a concealed handgun license.

SB 299 Last Action: 05/18/2013 E Effective on 9/1/13
Caption: Relating to the intentional display of a handgun by a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun.

SB 864 Last Action: 05/24/2013 E Effective on 9/1/13
Caption: Relating to a handgun proficiency course that is taken to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license.

SB 1907 Last Action: 05/28/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the transportation and storage of firearms and ammunition by concealed handgun license holders in private vehicles on the campuses of certain institutions of higher education.

User avatar

suthdj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2289
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:49 pm
Location: North Ft Worth(Alliance area)

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#5

Post by suthdj » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:48 pm

Maybe it is time for some new representation down in Austin.
21-Apr-09 filed online
05-Sep-09 Plastic Arrived
09-Sep-13 Plastic Arrived
21-june-18 Plasic Arrived

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#6

Post by G26ster » Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:55 pm

I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#7

Post by Bladed » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:15 pm

G26ster wrote:I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?
This was discussed in another thread. The most recent bill passed takes precedence in any area of conflict; however, there is no major area of conflict between these two bills. SB 864 primarily deals with an initial CHL course, and HB 48 primarily deals with renewals.

User avatar

Zoo
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:47 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#8

Post by Zoo » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:29 pm

suthdj wrote:Maybe it is time for some new representation down in Austin.
i think it's time for a new Governor, as long as it's not because the current one got a national office.
The city is not a concrete jungle. It is a human zoo.

User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#9

Post by G26ster » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:02 pm

Bladed wrote:
G26ster wrote:I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?
This was discussed in another thread. The most recent bill passed takes precedence in any area of conflict; however, there is no major area of conflict between these two bills. SB 864 primarily deals with an initial CHL course, and HB 48 primarily deals with renewals.
The bills' languages do conflict. SB 864 has a training requirement for renewals, while HB 48 does not. The only thing I've read is that the "latest" one passed takes precedence, but I've only read that on another forum, and was looking for someone here, like Mr. Cotton, to confirm that.


OldGrumpy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 298
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:37 am
Location: DFW Metroplex

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#10

Post by OldGrumpy » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:19 pm

Zoo wrote:
suthdj wrote:Maybe it is time for some new representation down in Austin.
i think it's time for a new Governor, as long as it's not because the current one got a national office.
:iagree: :patriot: :txflag:
Love God, Family, USA, and Texas
Act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God - Micah 6:8


IlliniBill
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:25 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#11

Post by IlliniBill » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:20 pm

jerry_r60 wrote: HB 1862 Last Action: 05/27/2013 E Sent to the Governor
Caption: Relating to the criminal consequences of engaging in certain conduct with respect to a switchblade knife.
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does this bill do? Based on my reading, it looks like it decriminalizes owning a switchblade. Is this correct?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB1862" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4236
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#12

Post by srothstein » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:35 pm

I have always hated the word decriminalize. So many people use decriminalize to mean make it a misdemeanor instead of a felony. My preferred wording is that this bill legalizes as it makes it more clear.

And that is what this bill will do. It will be legal to own and carry a switchblade knife when this law is signed and takes effect (Sep 1.).
Steve Rothstein


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#13

Post by JKTex » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:16 am

G26ster wrote:
Bladed wrote:
G26ster wrote:I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?
This was discussed in another thread. The most recent bill passed takes precedence in any area of conflict; however, there is no major area of conflict between these two bills. SB 864 primarily deals with an initial CHL course, and HB 48 primarily deals with renewals.
The bills' languages do conflict. SB 864 has a training requirement for renewals, while HB 48 does not. The only thing I've read is that the "latest" one passed takes precedence, but I've only read that on another forum, and was looking for someone here, like Mr. Cotton, to confirm that.
He's right. Don't try to read them more complicated than they are. If something doesn't apply, it doesn't apply as in this case. Law is hard enough to read as it is. :mrgreen:


JKTex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:28 am
Location: Flower Mound

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#14

Post by JKTex » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:21 am

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So can somone summarzie what was actually passed and signed into law again in both the main and this special session? I wouldn't trust any bill until its actually signed.
Edited because I type like a drunken nearsighted monkey (which is pretty accurate actually)
Ok, I wondered if that was it. Good to know I'm not loosing my drunken nearsighted monkey edge. :smilelol5:

Here also.

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop ... ed-0055401" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Bladed
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 421
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: looks like NRA got it right

#15

Post by Bladed » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:42 am

G26ster wrote:
Bladed wrote:
G26ster wrote:I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?
This was discussed in another thread. The most recent bill passed takes precedence in any area of conflict; however, there is no major area of conflict between these two bills. SB 864 primarily deals with an initial CHL course, and HB 48 primarily deals with renewals.
The bills' languages do conflict. SB 864 has a training requirement for renewals, while HB 48 does not. The only thing I've read is that the "latest" one passed takes precedence, but I've only read that on another forum, and was looking for someone here, like Mr. Cotton, to confirm that.
SB 864 made very few changes to the existing language on renewal classes. HB 48 then struck the existing language on renewal classes. Aside from some minor wording changes, there was no conflict between the two bills. HB 48 was passed second, so it supersedes SB 864 with regard to the few minor conflicts that did exist.

Essentially, the only parts of a bill that count are the parts that are either underlined or struck through. If it's written in a normal font, you can ignore it for purposes of understanding the effect of the bill.

The end result of these two bills is that initial CHL classes go from 10-15 hours to 4-6 hours, and renewal classes go away altogether.

Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”