TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:What was the "strict enforcement" motion that Stickland just made?

Must vote from their own desk and cannot vote for another Member.

Chas.

Thank you, Charles. Any idea of a reason Stickland would do that?

Not that I can post.

Chas.

Probably because of the same reasons that are running through my head. I can't post those thoughts either or you or Keith would bust me again for being a bad guy.

The "strict enforcement" rule when in effect, allows the speaker to only acknowledge one yea and one nay verbally (hand raised fingers) and the remainder votes must be from each member's chair.

CoffeeNut wrote:Oh god.

Kids will die if you don't vote to mandate retention devices.

Ah, the good ol' think of the children rhetoric.

Amendment 4 tabled

Motion prevails to table retention holster amendment.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:What was the "strict enforcement" motion that Stickland just made?

Must vote from their own desk and cannot vote for another Member.

Chas.

Thank you, Charles. Any idea of a reason Stickland would do that?

Not that I can post.

Chas.

Stickland alienated his fellow Members with his stunt. A lot of business gets done informally on the floor.

Chas.

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:What was the "strict enforcement" motion that Stickland just made?

Must vote from their own desk and cannot vote for another Member.

Chas.

Thank you, Charles. Any idea of a reason Stickland would do that?

Not that I can post.

Chas.

Probably because of the same reasons that are running through my head. I can't post those thoughts either or you or Keith would bust me again for being a bad guy.

The "strict enforcement" rule when in effect, allows the speaker to only acknowledge one yea and one nay verbally (hand raised fingers) and the remainder votes must be from each member's chair.

I understand what it means. You missed my point completely. The discussion is about WHY stickland did it.

treadlightly wrote:How could Nevarez' amendment be part of hb910? wouldn't that need to be an amendment to 30.06?

He was offering an amendment to HB910 that would change 30.06. If accepted, his amendment would change the original bill to include the language he was proposing.

Here comes the Badge Amendment!

Now the CHL badge amendment.

I got my badge a couple years ago as a Christmas gift. It was a gag gift from my son. It was good for a laugh.

Amendment 5. We don't need no stink badges.

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:What was the "strict enforcement" motion that Stickland just made?

Must vote from their own desk and cannot vote for another Member.

Chas.

Thank you, Charles. Any idea of a reason Stickland would do that?

Not that I can post.

Chas.

Probably because of the same reasons that are running through my head. I can't post those thoughts either or you or Keith would bust me again for being a bad guy.

The "strict enforcement" rule when in effect, allows the speaker to only acknowledge one yea and one nay verbally (hand raised fingers) and the remainder votes must be from each member's chair.

And I think Stickland also wanted a "record vote" on every amendment. Speaker Straus sort of truncated that from his response to Stickland. It's probably that most amendments to HB910 will be a "record vote" anyway, so it looks like just another way to prolong passage.

Oh my god who the heck is she? Amendment 5 is ridiculous.

James

gljjt wrote:I actually hope the house votes it down. Forget OC if it guts 30.06

When I see gljjt I think Gidget. Sorry. I may have mentioned that before in another thread?

Not really directed at you personally but all the forget OC if it hurts my precious 30.06 crowd.

For all the good it does IMHO we all should learn not to rely on 30.06, it's a mere technicality that is easily overcome and legally deny you CC. HB 2405 is attempting to gut 30.06 all by itself. If you hang your hopes and dreams on 30.06 you will be disappointed sooner or later. We need to make all the progress we can.

I wish I could think of a gentlemanly way to describe how dumb this amendment is.

BigGuy wrote:Amendment 5. We don't need no stink badges.

Looks like we dont since its tabled