TexasCHLforum.com

While it may make some feel better to blame OCT, some republicans or an amendment, the truth is the opposition ran a better game and out played us. They brought a better message than we did it is as simple as that. The upper and lower houses appear to speak different languages and with that weren't unified in their approach. The GOP should have closed ranks and protected open carry and ALL 2a legislation. But they didn't do that. Add to that a very assertive and tactically well played game plan and you can spell defeat. Or victory, depending on which side you're on. Who knew the amendment was poison? Everyone! Everyone but the republican side of the legislature. After all, it was added once, no twice. Talk about a double smack of stupid! The anti 2a crowd has to be laughing their collective off right now because resistance is futile. We started with a majority, rules in our favor and mandate and still lost. What an embarrassing mess.

harrycallahan wrote:While it may make some feel better to blame OCT, some republicans or an amendment, the truth is the opposition ran a better game and out played us. They brought a better message than we did it is as simple as that. The upper and lower houses appear to speak different languages and with that weren't unified in their approach. The GOP should have closed ranks and protected open carry and ALL 2a legislation. But they didn't do that. Add to that a very assertive and tactically well played game plan and you can spell defeat. Or victory, depending on which side you're on. Who knew the amendment was poison? Everyone! Everyone but the republican side of the legislature. After all, it was added once, no twice. Talk about a double smack of stupid! The anti 2a crowd has to be laughing their collective off right now because resistance is futile. We started with a majority, rules in our favor and mandate and still lost. What an embarrassing mess.

exactly....

UN
BE
LEAVABLE

The bold ones are those who switched direction on what is virtually the same language

Yea votes for hb910 with Dutton amendment 4/20


Yeas — Anderson, C.; Anderson, R.; Ashby; Aycock; Bell; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Burns; Burrows; Button; Capriglione; Clardy; Cook;
Craddick; Crownover; Cyrier; Dale; Darby; Davis, S.; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Farney; Fletcher; Flynn; Frank; Frullo; Galindo; Geren; Goldman; Gonzales;
Guillen; Harless; Herrero; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, K.; King, P.; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Koop; Krause; Kuempel;
Landgraf; Larson; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Metcalf; Meyer; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Moody; Morrison; Murphy; Murr; Otto; Paddie; Parker;
Paul; Pen˜a; Phelan; Phillips; Pickett; Raney; Raymond; Rinaldi; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Sheets; Sheffield; Simmons; Simpson;
Smith; Smithee; Spitzer; Springer; Stephenson; Stickland; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; White, J.; White, M.; Workman; Wray; Zedler;
Zerwas.


Nay votes on hb910 with Huffines amendment today:

Nays - Allen; Alonzo; Alvarado; Anchia; Anderson, C.; Ashby; Aycock; Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Coleman; Collier; Cook; Dale; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Farias; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Frank; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; González; Guerra; Gutierrez; Harless; Hernandez; Herrero; Howard; Israel; Johnson; King, K.; King, P.; Koop; Larson; Márquez; Martinez Fischer; Meyer; Miles; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Minjarez; Moody; Morrison; Muñoz; Murphy; Naishtat; Nevárez; Peña; Pickett; Price; Reynolds; Riddle; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.; Romero; Rose; Sheets; Sheffield; Smith; Smithee; Stephenson; Thompson, E.; Turner, C.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; Wu; Zerwas

Find your representative if listed under "nays-" you know what to do.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 05/27/2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

StrangeBulge wrote:Find your representative if listed under "nays-" you know what to do.

Re-elect them?

StrangeBulge wrote:Find your representative if listed under "nays-" you know what to do.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 05/27/2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might make everyone feel good to besiege these people with phone calls, nasty email or worse. Before you do, remember we still need their votes later on. Even though most if not all might be GOP, at this time I'd consider each one to be a swing vote. They feel neither obligation or fear if HB910 fails. Why, because it is the safest position to take right now. If you want anything to pass this session, I'd suggest moderation at this point.

Can someone explain?

Present, not voting - Kuempel(C); Mr. Speaker

Kuempel is my rep.

Frankie wrote:Can someone explain?

Present, not voting - Kuempel(C); Mr. Speaker

Kuempel is my rep.

My rep as well, I don't think the "speaker" usually votes when he is on the podium.

Sent my rep a thank you for voting in favor.

One of the Inquiries that was asked... stated that if the conference committee can not come to an agreement, can the House go back to an up/down vote on HB910 with the amendment intact and the answer was yes. I believe a few representatives wanted to try conference first but would vote yes if they could not agree in conference. Whether or not there was enough support is another question.

Source: Watched the live feed.

casp625 wrote:One of the Inquiries that was asked... stated that if the conference committee can not come to an agreement, can the House go back to an up/down vote on HB910 with the amendment intact and the answer was yes. I believe a few representatives wanted to try conference first but would vote yes if they could not agree in conference. Whether or not there was enough support is another question.

Yes, but the more likely scenario is that the conference committee will come to an agreement. The vote on that agreement will then be filibustered by Senate Democrats (at which point the House can't just go back in time and re-vote on concurrence).

v7a wrote:

casp625 wrote:One of the Inquiries that was asked... stated that if the conference committee can not come to an agreement, can the House go back to an up/down vote on HB910 with the amendment intact and the answer was yes. I believe a few representatives wanted to try conference first but would vote yes if they could not agree in conference. Whether or not there was enough support is another question.

Yes, but the more likely scenario is that the conference committee will come to an agreement. The vote on that agreement will then be filibustered by Senate Democrats (at which point the House can't just go back in time and re-vote on concurrence).

Correct, this is text book on how-to and where-to send a bill to die. Open Carry, Campus Carry and all meaningful 2a legislation is already dead for this session. The problem is we just don't know it yet.

I sent this to my representative ---- FLETCHER ...........................

"I was very disappointed to see that you voted against this bill for concurrence today. I find this hard to understand when the "amendment" is no different than current Federal Law under the 4th amendment. I assume that your POLICE background was a factor in your reservations.

Please do whatever you can to get this bill through the conference committee and passed on the floor AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, to prevent it from running out of time.

I am counting on you get OC legislation passed in this session, but that will require your help with the above process.

Please keep me posted with whatever actions that you take, as I assure you my vote and efforts to get you reelected are at stake."

v7a wrote:

casp625 wrote:One of the Inquiries that was asked... stated that if the conference committee can not come to an agreement, can the House go back to an up/down vote on HB910 with the amendment intact and the answer was yes. I believe a few representatives wanted to try conference first but would vote yes if they could not agree in conference. Whether or not there was enough support is another question.

Yes, but the more likely scenario is that the conference committee will come to an agreement. The vote on that agreement will then be filibustered by Senate Democrats (at which point the House can't just go back in time and re-vote on concurrence).

In which case, why wouldn't the House just wait to see if the Senate attempts a filibuster and delay their own vote? That way, if a filibuster does occur and time wouldn't allow for passage, they can pull the conference attempt and do a 2nd up/down vote?

v7a wrote:Texas Open Carry Bill Stalls Again Due to Political Pressure

Chairman Phillips told Breitbart Texas that Wednesday’s vote was not a vote against the open carry bill, but simply that members want to take the time to explore other options on resolving the concerns of law enforcement.

“We are going to work hard to get this bill passed,” Phillips said in a phone interview. “There is still a strong commitment from those who voted yes in April.”

Phillips said that if the Senate does not appoint their conference members or if the conference cannot reach a timely resolution that would allow the Senate and the House to approve the conference report, the House can discharge the conference committee and bring the bill back for another concurrence vote.

“I feel certain we have to votes to pass it when it comes back,” Phillips stated.