HB595 One-gun-per-month & waiting periods for handguns

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


Venus Pax
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3139
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:27 pm
Location: SE Texas

#16

Post by Venus Pax » Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:33 pm

I took your basic frame work and altered it to address it to my own rep & senator.
Thanks for the sample letter.
"If a man breaks in your house, he ain't there for iced tea." Mom & Dad.

The NRA & TSRA are a bargain; they're much cheaper than the cold, dead hands experience.


Skipper5
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:23 pm
Location: Dallas

#17

Post by Skipper5 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:20 am

Ditto....thanks again.
TX CHL Holder
NRA Life Member
TSRA Member - Yes to Castle Doctrine! Success!!


SA-TX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Ellis County now; adios Dallas!

No worries

#18

Post by SA-TX » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:31 pm

This bill will never become law and Davis is one of only a couple of dozen urban liberals that would even propose such a thing. It is all about interest group scores as even she knows this stands no chance of passage. Here's why we have nothing to worry about:

1) The House of Representatives will never pass it. I'll bet you that it never even gets a committee hearing.

2) If it somehow passed the House, which is unlikely given that rural Democrats would oppose such a measure, it would fail in the Senate. Super majority support is necessary to get beyond the "blocker bill" and I can't see there being enough votes for this.

3) Even if somehow the Legislature passed such a thing Governor Perry would surely veto it. He has been a strong friend to the CHL / 2nd amendment community.

4) Even if somehow it became law (with or without his signature), it would be struck down by the courts. IANAL but the Texas Constitution seems to give the Legislature only the authority to "regulate the WEARING of arms", not sales, possession, or anything else. As I understand it, that's why Texas has no laws regarding long guns as the Texas Supreme Court declared long ago that they can't be "worn" and thus cannot be regulated.

Charles / other attorneys, do you think such a "one gun a month" law would be valid?

Not to worry. This will never happen. Hopefully we'll work on the things which are do-able like parking lots, castle doctrine, and -- my pet peeve -- the "court or court office" situations at public buildings. Dallas County and many cities use this to keep CHL holders from carrying anywhere in a big building simply by placing a court or court office there.

SA-TX

User avatar

nitrogen
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2322
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Sachse, TX
Contact:

Re: No worries

#19

Post by nitrogen » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:33 am

SA-TX wrote: 2) If it somehow passed the House, which is unlikely given that rural Democrats would oppose such a measure, it would fail in the Senate. Super majority support is necessary to get beyond the "blocker bill" and I can't see there being enough votes for this.
Being a Texas Legislative newbie, can you explain to me what the "blocker bill" is?
.השואה... לעולם לא עוד
Holocaust... Never Again.
Some people create their own storms and get upset when it rains.
--anonymous


SA-TX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Ellis County now; adios Dallas!

#20

Post by SA-TX » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:09 am

The "blocker bill" is a habitual device -- though not required by any rule --- that has been employed in the TX Senate so that legislation has to have super majority support to move forward. The way that it works in practice is that a shell bill is put forward as the 1st bill on the legislative agenda. This bill is entirely bogus, of course, and only serves the purpose of making everything else go around it. To be heard "out of order", a measure has to have more than bare majority support. Thus, consensus has developed as the standard operating procedure of the Texas Senate. To get anything done, you must have a good amount of support and must horse trade for it.

A notable exception to the "blocker bill" rule was made with the reapportionment legislation but that isn't without precendent either as it was done in a called session of the legislature and reapportionment / redistricting legislation has always been among the most contentious. In summary, except for redistricting issues, the Texas Senate has -- whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans -- stuck to a self-imposed mandate of super-majority support to move a bill.

SA-TX

Locked

Return to “2007 Texas Legislative Session”