TexasCHLforum.com

viking1000 wrote:Does anyone know whats going on ???

apparently not

Xikar wrote:You a ham radio operator?

And do you "know something" about the House voting? Is HB910 being voted on today?

I'm not a legislative process expert by any means, but I'm guessing that when the appropriate staff members come back to work on Tuesday and get all the necessary documents printed and distributed as required by rule, we'll see some action on HB910, perhaps mid-week? According to the published dates http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/dates/dates% ... terest.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; they have until Thursday/Friday to get it done. The House doesn't need to vote on the bill again, but since it originated in the House and has an amendment by the Senate, the House will need to move on concurrence of the amendment (motion to concur), then when the motion is adopted, it can be signed by the House and sent to the Governor. That's all I know right now. Someone please correct me on anything that might be in question. At this point in time, I don't know of anything "we" (or law enforcement) can do to change their actions.

K5GU wrote:

Xikar wrote:You a ham radio operator?

And do you "know something" about the House voting? Is HB910 being voted on today?

I'm not a legislative process expert by any means, but I'm guessing that when the appropriate staff members come back to work on Tuesday and get all the necessary documents printed and distributed as required by rule, we'll see some action on HB910, perhaps mid-week? According to the published dates http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/dates/dates% ... terest.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; they have until Thursday/Friday to get it done. The House doesn't need to vote on the bill again, but since it originated in the House and has an amendment by the Senate, the House will need to move on concurrence of the amendment (motion to concur), then when the motion is adopted, it can be signed by the House and sent to the Governor. That's all I know right now. Someone please correct me on anything that might be in question. At this point in time, I don't know of anything "we" (or law enforcement) can do to change their actions.

I don't know the process, so I will go with your opinion of how things will play out.
1 . It is possible the House does nothing the bill will die. (I don't think that will happen) but it is possible.
2. The Gov. could still veto it. He said he would sign any bill that hit his desk concerning OC. So for now we will take his word for it.
3. He could not sign it, which I think it would still become law without his signature after 10 days, if not vetoed before that time. (Possible if he is displeased with the Dutton amend)

If the House concurs then it goes to the Governor. If the House doesn't then it goes to conference committee if there is enough time. If there is time and a conference report comes out, then each chamber has an up or down vote. if its close enough to the end of the session, then Democrats will filibuster and the bill dies.

Chas.

Could the house simply not act?
In your opinion do you feel the House will rise against this bill, even though they already added the amendment before?
I know it's speculation, I'd be leaning towards they concur along the same lines as they did before sending it to the Senate. JMHO

I'm a little surprised that nobody here seems to know what is going on.

Does the House have to vote again, or is it just a "motion to concur"... and what is the difference? What does a house do in a "motion to concur"?

Sorry, I haven't been able to keep up as much as I would like, so I've got a quick question.

I'm aware of the Dutton amendment, but the Texas legislature online site also shows an adopted amendment that would allow a city of 750,000 or more to pass a local ordinance to prohibit OC. Is that correct?

thatguyoverthere wrote:Sorry, I haven't been able to keep up as much as I would like, so I've got a quick question.

I'm aware of the Dutton amendment, but the Texas legislature online site also shows an adopted amendment that would allow a city of 750,000 or more to pass a local ordinance to prohibit OC. Is that correct?

No. That was an amendment to an amendment, which failed.

Xikar wrote:I'm a little surprised that nobody here seems to know what is going on.

Does the House have to vote again, or is it just a "motion to concur"... and what is the difference? What does a house do in a "motion to concur"?

I'm not a expert....but I believe that it will be a "motion to concur" made on the house floor by the author of the bill, up or down vote. yay or nay only!
You got to remember not everybody has been following this process as much as others.

I was I including myself with that lot. I can't seem to find much information about what is happening, and usually on such topics somebody somewhere knows a lot of information to share or has a deep knowledge about the subject matter.

Xikar wrote:I'm a little surprised that nobody here seems to know what is going on.

Does the House have to vote again, or is it just a "motion to concur"... and what is the difference? What does a house do in a "motion to concur"?

I'm not sure what you are asking. The process is as I described above. Yes, the full House must vote to concur or not. If a conference committee is necessary and if there's enough time to get a conference report, then both the full House and full Senate must vote on the conference report. Either body can filibuster, but the Senate is the most likely to do so. Sen. Ellis and Sen. West have promised to do so, if HB910 winds up back late enough for a filibuster to be successful.

If you are asking what work is being done, that I cannot disclose for reasons I've stated.

Chas.

Cross posted from another thread:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Dutton Amendment:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

The underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.

same logical meanings, or do I miss something?

Beiruty wrote:same logical meanings, or do I miss something?

Same meanings. The problem if different words. If you're going to make an amendment with the same meaning, then use the same words to save time!

CJD wrote:Cross posted from another thread:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Dutton Amendment:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

The underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.

evidence of his fumbling or did he change the wording so as to claim the amendment his own?