TexasCHLforum.com

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

Jasonw560 wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:He's clearly outclassed. Not sure how he even got elected at this point - public speaking is not his strong suit.

Needs to go back to selling cars and developing real estate and leave the politics for the people who know what they are talking about.

Or at least TALKED to people "in the know" to prepare for the questions.

It's inexcusable. He doesn't even know the current CHL statutes or MPA.

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

txglock21 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

At this point, I'M against the amendment if it's going to kill the entire bill!

Don't think this amendment will effect final passage if we can get to a vote. She is slowing down the vote, not Huffines.

Did everyone drink during recess or can they just not do their job for over 8 hours?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

That's fair. I'd expect her to fight for her convictions. Guess you would also have to admire Huffines for fighting for his conviction?

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

Joan is also astute enough to know that HB 910 can be amended later if needed to include the kinds of things presented in the "Dutton" amendment, similar to amendments added to the original CHL bill.

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

The same as it is today, right? (If I'm interpreting your question correctly).

Huffines:

Rest of Senate:

Get on with the vote!!!

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

Yes but neither can they pull someone over just to see if they have a driver's license, even if they are driving without one. You can't legislate away crime.

There will probably be more amendments forthcoming.

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

If they pulled them over, it had to be for a reason other than open carry to begin with so it wouldn't be "solely" for carrying a gun in a belt or shoulder holster.

Stripes Dude wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:He's clearly outclassed. Not sure how he even got elected at this point - public speaking is not his strong suit.

Needs to go back to selling cars and developing real estate and leave the politics for the people who know what they are talking about.

Or at least TALKED to people "in the know" to prepare for the questions.

It's inexcusable. He doesn't even know the current CHL statutes or MPA.

Agree. He did not do his homework. I'm glad he doesn't represent me.

Sounds like she's admitting defeat.