Page 5 of 9
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 4:49 pm
by jerry_r60
Ruark wrote:TexasJohnBoy wrote:
Now let's finish this off. Committee in the house on sb 11 and 17 and hopefully a floor vote. Those two hurdles... 308 needs a floor vote in the house and the senate to take it up. Come on...
Argghhhh I hope not. We want 910 in the Senate, not 17 in the House. 910 has the additional amendments.
The Senate seemed a bit easier go. There didn't seem to be the same kind of loose cannon we saw in the house during debates.
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 5:38 pm
by safety1
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 6:30 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
I don't get it. Just put it on the calendar guys!
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Thu May 07, 2015 8:04 pm
by hovercat
I know not really, but it seems like our reps want to make an easy job look hard so they can tell us how much they worked for this. Like an auto mechanic keeping the car 3 days and a big bill, when all he did was change the fuel filter.
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 10:20 am
by v7a
Next week's Homeland Security committee meeting has now also been scheduled.
SB11 and SB17 are not on the list.
Unless they somehow get added before the meeting occurs, this means that there will be zero action on Open Carry or Campus Carry in either House or Senate next week.
Appearently after some brief excitement this week we're back to a
game of chicken:
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 11:16 am
by The Annoyed Man
Charles, is there anything you can tell us yet about any of this?
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 11:56 am
by baseballguy2001
It seems to me, as voters we changed just about every office in Texas except one. The one we have no control over. We were told because of certain (meaningless in my view) events, "this time" lots of Pro2A legislation will get done.
The current speaker has to go.
I'll say it again -- see you in 2017.
By then, this session will be ancient history. Just like in baseball, the terrible year that was last season is forgotten. I have no doubt there will be more democrats in the legislature in 2017, THIS session was the one to get it done.
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 12:06 pm
by KC5AV
I don't pretend to understand a whole lot of what goes on in the legislature, but I see a whole lot of people giving up hope for making any significant 2A gains this session.
I've watched this legislative process play out for the last several sessions since I got my CHL (and I still don't understand a lot of it), and I've seen some good stuff come out at the 11th hour.
I'm not going to give up hope until June 2, or until Charles says all hope is lost, whichever comes first.
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 12:32 pm
by v7a
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 1:45 pm
by v7a
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 1:51 pm
by mr1337
Love me some Mike Cargill. I try to give him my business whenever I can.
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Fri May 08, 2015 4:30 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
timtheteacher wrote:HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOTICE OF FORMAL MEETING
COMMITTEE: Homeland Security & Public Safety
TIME & DATE: 10:10 AM, Friday, May 08, 2015
PLACE: Agricultural Museum, 1W.14
CHAIR: Rep. Larry Phillips
The committee will meet to consider pending business.
Notice of this meeting was announced from the house floor.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 810101.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nothin about SB17 or SB11. SB179 out of committee. One step closer to qualifying with 22lr instead of .32...
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 2:02 pm
by v7a
While we wait for the children to play nice, some legal news from the 6th Circuit:
The Fourth Amendment and open carry of guns (where such open carry is legal)
While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision — not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment — by detaining every “gunman” who lawfully possesses a firearm. And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrup’s favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed.
Re: HB910/SB17 standoff
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 2:11 pm
by safety1
v7a wrote:While we wait for the children to play nice, some legal news from the 6th Circuit:
The Fourth Amendment and open carry of guns (where such open carry is legal)
While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision — not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment — by detaining every “gunman” who lawfully possesses a firearm. And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrup’s favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed.
I ashamed right now
