TexasCHLforum.com

gljjt wrote:

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Amendment 9, adding preemption/local decision making for cities over 1 mil in population, was tabled. There was an amendment to amendment 9 offered and that may have passed, I'm not sure. However, since the original amendment 9 was tabled, its amendment did as well. It lowered the population level to preempt the state to 750,000 from 1,000,000.

How many times can someone use the word amendment is a couple of sentences?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original 1 mil population was amendment #8 which was tabled after #9 (750K pop.) was adopted, so #9 was ineffectual.

Wait! What about the amendment to the amendment that amended the amendment? (grin)

It was amended.

Pray that I do not amend it any further....

Plus, didn't Stickland ask that everything be added to the journal? Did that include the amendments that he requested that were deemed to not be germane?

AJSully421 wrote:Plus, didn't Stickland ask that everything be added to the journal? Did that include the amendments that he requested that were deemed to not be germane?

He submitted his own little memorandum for inclusion in the journal.

It can be seen here.

What happens now? Back to the Senate, then a third reading in the House before a vote?

MadMonkey wrote:What happens now? Back to the Senate, then a third reading in the House before a vote?

Third reading Monday, then to Senate.

Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.
Edit: Preempt not the correct term...

In regards to the large pops municipalities it appears we just chopped it up:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

We were typing at the same time! I edited my post because it confused me too! Unless I'm reading the amendment wrong.

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

We were typing at the same time! I edited my post because it confused me too! Unless I'm reading the amendment wrong.

I'm still not sure I'm clear. HB 910 does not allow a local exemption, that amendment was tabled. Are you saying you don't like the idea that the law allowed the amendment to be offered to begin with?

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

We were typing at the same time! I edited my post because it confused me too! Unless I'm reading the amendment wrong.

I'm still not sure I'm clear. HB 910 does not allow a local exemption, that amendment was tabled. Are you saying you don't like the idea that the law allowed the amendment to be offered to begin with?

The link shows amendment 9 was adopted. Maybe I'm totally confused, I hope so. I would hate to see potentially 6.5 Million Texans lose this OC option within large cities.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 910H29.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

We were typing at the same time! I edited my post because it confused me too! Unless I'm reading the amendment wrong.

I'm still not sure I'm clear. HB 910 does not allow a local exemption, that amendment was tabled. Are you saying you don't like the idea that the law allowed the amendment to be offered to begin with?

The link shows amendment 9 was adopted. Maybe I'm totally confused, I hope so. I would hate to see potentially 6.5 Million Texans lose this OC option within large cities.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 910H29.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Amendment 9 was an amendment to Amendment 8 (lowered the exemption population from 1 million to 750,000). Amendment 8 was then tabled making the adoption of Amendment 9 meaningless.

Say that 3 times really fast. I'm much happier now than I was 10 minutes ago. Awesome Bill!!

rbwhatever1 wrote:Awesome Bill!!

For me and he best part of the bill is the lowering of the penalty in 30.06 from a Class A to a Class C.

It really would be great if they could have slipped in an amendment removing the prohibited places also.

mojo84 wrote:It really would be great if they could have slipped in an amendment removing the prohibited places also.

Trying to limit the amendments in order to get something as close as possible to what the senate passed kept a few things from being added to the bill that would have been nice to include but I understand the strategy.