TexasCHLforum.com

OMG LOL When you want to FEEL SAFE, carry a lucky rabbit foot, to BE SAFE carry a .45


Charles got quoted

So, What was the vote again?

SB 122 amendment incorporated and reported to senate favorable recommendation
SB 122 Ellis | et al.
Relating to postconviction forensic DNA analysis.
============

354 left pending committee in recess unless i heard wrong

Wow that was rather abysmal

pending in recess? what does it mean? when it would be voted on?

Beiruty wrote:pending in recess? what does it mean? when it would be voted on?

I'm guessing they need to discuss it (opt out provisions?) or didn't want to pass it in front of all the antis there right now like the House did ... apparently there are several on medications there right now ...

RPB wrote:

Beiruty wrote:pending in recess? what does it mean? when it would be voted on?

I'm guessing they need to discuss it or didn't want to pass it in front of all the antis there right now

One would hope.

It means ... we need to call/fax committee members pass WITHOUT AMENDMENTS out of committee report favorably again

If at "some campus" we can't trust the judgment of students/faculty/staff with guns who are CHLs, how can we trust the entire body, who may be LESS responsible thinking, LESS mature younger, with this decision to opt out or not?

If this is a POLL where they vote to opt out or not, the "LESS responsible OBVIOUSLY outnumber the responsible CHLS as evidenced by less crimes committed by CHLs

So those according to the DPS crime Statistics, who are more likely to commit crimes get to vote on whether I, a CHL can protect myself from them?
Is their a similar poll for criminal to vote on whether police should be armed?
I hope you see the ridiculousness of that proposition, it is illogical.

(I'm just venting,, don't send this lol )

RPB wrote:If this is a POLL where they vote to opt out or not, the "LESS responsible OBVIOUSLY outnumber the responsible CHLS as evidenced by less crimes committed by CHLs

Speaking of polls, i heard a lot of "statistical information" being spouted by the anti's without a source or citation. Where did they come up with some of this stuff? "Students in colleges across texas have voted against this bill..." well obviously you haven't looked into my school, or some others I have seen that voted for this bill favorably.

People over 50 like chocolate

They made them up
true students across Texas voted not to allow every student to be issued a gun on campus, none voted to force car storage allowing easy access for burglars

Several did author it, but I hope they don't amend to keep the "status quo" by inserting "opt outs" effectively neutering it

Thank you all for your great reporting. I was able to watch a little of the last half hour or so.

The archive link is up:
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive ... m=00004937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SB353 debate begins at: 1:56:30

Also, the t.u. history prof caught a good one from whitmire about the fact that those who are adamant about being armed on campus are already doing so, illegally but still he has a good point that there is a good chance the guns are there. The prof was so far in denial, that after whitmire brought to his attention that guns have been there all along and it hasn't changed the open, student/prof intellectual environment, he still ignorantly reiterated his broken stance that the magical college environment would would take a devastating turn for the worst. [face in palm]

P.S. I personally know of two individuals who stored firearms in their dorm room for over a year, so I know whitmire's statement has some validity to it.

Wow!!! Although I wish there were no 'opting out' for private institutions (as I work at one) - I do like the substitute language that clarifies immunity is only available for private universities that do not adopt limitations. It at least gives them something to think about ...

terryg wrote:Wow!!! Although I wish there were no 'opting out' for private institutions (as I work at one) - I do like the substitute language that clarifies immunity is only available for private universities that do not adopt limitations. It at least gives them something to think about ...

I agree, that sounds like a very positive modification. Is that published on the tlo website?

terryg wrote:Wow!!! Although I wish there were no 'opting out' for private institutions (as I work at one) - I do like the substitute language that clarifies immunity is only available for private universities that do not adopt limitations. It at least gives them something to think about ...

True. it's forseeable that crimes occur in gun free zones like the kidnapping at UH robberies at several lots of assaults at UT, etc .... opt out and pull out a checkbook; don't opt out and don't get sued