Page 1 of 2
Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:10 pm
by NotRPB
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=2982 live stream
Charles is up now
Bill: HB 899
Legislative Session: 85(R) Council Document: 85R 4113 LHC-F
Add to Bill List | Add to Alert List
Last Action: 04/11/2017 H Scheduled for public hearing on . . .
Caption Version: Introduced
Caption Text: Relating to the notice given by a property owner prohibiting a handgun license holder from carrying a handgun on certain property.
Author: Nevárez
Subjects: Weapons (I0887)
INTERNET (S0130)
SIGNS (S0235)
PUBLIC SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF (V0251)
House Committee: Homeland Security & Public Safety
Status: In committee
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ll=HB00899
Re: Alice's testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:17 pm
by Vol Texan
And Charles is speaking right now! Go get-em Mr. Cotton!
Re: Alice's testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:26 pm
by NotRPB
Vol Texan wrote:And Charles is speaking right now! Go get-em Mr. Cotton!
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:43 pm
by hovercat
Left pending.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:43 pm
by ELB
So HB 560 is buried in committee without so much as a nod, and (only!) three authors/co-authors signed up, and this trash -- with only the author on record -- gets a public hearing that we have to go out and fight. I expect this bill has little support on the floor, but it is using up valuable legislative time and the only good it will do is to provide some fodder to say "hey we stopped a bad bill!" Which could have been stopped with no effort at all, just like HB 560.
Priorities of the Speaker and his House.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:32 am
by locke_n_load
transcripts anyone?
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:47 am
by oljames3
locke_n_load wrote:transcripts anyone?
Video is archived at:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... dcasts/85/ for the main menu.
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=13483 for Homeland Security & Public Safety, 4/11/17.
Works for me in Microsoft Edge. Not in Chrome. Your mileage will vary.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:47 am
by WildBill
Thank you for posting the link! Microsoft Edge works for me.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 9:59 am
by oljames3
WildBill wrote:
Thank you for posting the link! Microsoft Edge works for me.
Charles and Alice are on a later session at:
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=13496
Alice start about 4 hours, 17 minutes. Poncho is holding forth before that.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:01 am
by NotRPB
you beat me to it
link above was morning
here is Afternoon with Alice and Charles on gunbuster sign bill (Podium instead of seated panels)
Fast Forward to 4:12
http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=13496
I'd love to drug test the (time release?)
sprinkles at that cupcake shop "crazy pills" ? (just kidding)
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:44 am
by NotRPB
At 4:42 some woman lies & says Intent of Texas30.06 site is to alert us to non-compliant signs or something ...However, I use it and the App to know what businesses to avoid that post signs saying they don't want my business as a law abiding citizen.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:47 am
by cyphertext
Since the congressman was quick to point to other states who have the gunbuster type signs like Oklahoma, I wish someone would have pointed out that those signs have no force of law. I'd be fine with going with the gunbuster sign, provided that it had no force of law or penalties by just carrying past it.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 11:57 am
by Soccerdad1995
cyphertext wrote:Since the congressman was quick to point to other states who have the gunbuster type signs like Oklahoma, I wish someone would have pointed out that those signs have no force of law. I'd be fine with going with the gunbuster sign, provided that it had no force of law or penalties by just carrying past it.
Florida is another example.
We are not talking about an onerous regulation being placed on a business by the government. We are simply saying that if a private business wants to have the free use of law enforcement officers to enforce their business policies, then they need to put up a specific type of sign.
What we should be talking about is why anyone thinks it is appropriate to use publicly funded law enforcement officers to enforce a businesses' policies. Someone not following all of your rules should not be a crime unless they refuse to leave when asked.
And let's just conveniently ignore that we are talking about an underlying policy that is definitely NOT in the public interest since it increases the risk of injury and death for everyone in that location. If anything, police should be used to prevent the enforcement of dangerous business policies such as this.
Re: Alice's and Charles' testimony was great on Gunbuster sign Bill
Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:55 pm
by Scott Farkus
cyphertext wrote:Since the congressman was quick to point to other states who have the gunbuster type signs like Oklahoma, I wish someone would have pointed out that those signs have no force of law. I'd be fine with going with the gunbuster sign, provided that it had no force of law or penalties by just carrying past it.
Absolutely this.