Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 6:32 am
I'm no expert, but can't something like this be added as an amendment to an existing bill?KBCraig wrote:No more bills can be submitted this session. There's a very brief window for new bills.
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
I'm no expert, but can't something like this be added as an amendment to an existing bill?KBCraig wrote:No more bills can be submitted this session. There's a very brief window for new bills.
No. In Texas (and most other states) a bill can cover only one subject. If no existing bill modifies section 46.03 of the penal code (and I'm not aware of one), the law can't be changed until 2009.tornado wrote:I'm no expert, but can't something like this be added as an amendment to an existing bill?
..unrelated to the subject at hand, but I've got to imagine that federal government would operate so much more smoothly and less "crappy" legislation (pork-barrel politics) would occur if this were eliminated and the feds were required to stick to one subject per bill, just as the states are.seamusTX wrote: The feds have the ability to stuff unrelated amendments into bills, and they can introduce a new bill almost any time.
- Jim
another quote from the article:Velocity wrote:This news was front page material for the Houston Chronicle today :
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html
They even got the "banned places" list correct :
"Current law prohibits the carrying of firearms, even by handgun licensees, into bars, schools, most areas of college campuses and courthouses. Churches can ban them, and governmental bodies can prohibit licensees from carrying pistols into public meetings."
Pretty good article, overall, and it's good to see the issue getting attention!
I've thought about this a lot. If I were king for a day, I would amend the Constitution to require it.Velocity wrote:... I've got to imagine that federal government would operate so much more smoothly and less "crappy" legislation (pork-barrel politics) would occur if this were eliminated and the feds were required to stick to one subject per bill, ...
[rant="51%"]Russell wrote:Basically, if it is not posted 30.06 or 51%, carry away!
While in principle I'm in favor of this happening, I also expectAllow concealed guns anywhere, governor says
Good point but I hope that doesnt happen. Hopefully most business will not post more 30.06 signage. For one it looks ugly and also advertises to criminal that law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry.patrickstickler wrote:While in principle I'm in favor of this happening, I also expectAllow concealed guns anywhere, governor says
it will result in a huge number of new 30.06 postings as awareness
of CHL holders increases due to such a bill.
Maybe it will only be a short-lived inconvenience, with most of them
coming down eventually in favor of business from law abiding
citizens, but then, maybe not.