TexasCHLforum.com

pt145ss wrote:Can someone post up the difference in the two amendments? Is it a significant change or just a minor change?

If you are talking about the "Dutton" amendment, my understanding is the only difference is basically a typo. They were intended to be identical.

pt145ss wrote:Can someone post up the difference in the two amendments? Is it a significant change or just a minor change?

This is the language sent over from the House to the Senate. The version that passed out of the Senate is not online yet. Only the Senate committee report is online at this time. The Huffines amendment added back the 411.2049 language, the question is whether it added back the exact language. if it differs by even a punctuation mark, my understanding is that the House would have to reconfirm.

Engrossed version sent from House to Senate on 21-April.

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/ ... the-house/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some thought because the amendment was removed and re-inserted, the bill would go straight on to the Governor for signature. Other’s thought it might have to go back to the House for concurrence. Breitbart Texas learned the Senate general counsel confirmed that the bill will have to go back to the House for a concurrence vote. If the House approves the Senate changes it will go on to Governor Abbott for signature. If the House does not concur, a conference committee will have to resolve the difference between the two versions of HB 910.

One source in the Senate said there could be as little as a three word difference between the versions.

jmra wrote:

pt145ss wrote:Can someone post up the difference in the two amendments? Is it a significant change or just a minor change?

If you are talking about the "Dutton" amendment, my understanding is the only difference is basically a typo. They were intended to be identical.

Yes... I was looking for the difference between the Dutton/Huffines amendments. I read one article that the difference is three words.

Someone said that there is a day set aside for nothing but concurrence votes. What day is that?

Also worth noting....
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/ ... the-house/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“While the Senate considered attaching ‘campus carry’ to this bill, Speaker Joe Straus has assured the Texas Senate that the House will approve a ‘campus carry’ bill in time to be approved by the Senate and sent to the Governor to become law before time runs out on the 84th Legislative Session,” concluded Patrick.

RoyGBiv wrote:Also worth noting....
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/ ... the-house/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“While the Senate considered attaching ‘campus carry’ to this bill, Speaker Joe Straus has assured the Texas Senate that the House will approve a ‘campus carry’ bill in time to be approved by the Senate and sent to the Governor to become law before time runs out on the 84th Legislative Session,” concluded Patrick.

That is the article I read that said there was a three word difference between the Dutton and Huffines amendments.

pt145ss wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Also worth noting....
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/ ... the-house/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“While the Senate considered attaching ‘campus carry’ to this bill, Speaker Joe Straus has assured the Texas Senate that the House will approve a ‘campus carry’ bill in time to be approved by the Senate and sent to the Governor to become law before time runs out on the 84th Legislative Session,” concluded Patrick.

That is the article I read that said there was a three word difference between the Dutton and Huffines amendments.

It adds insult to injury that Huffines took the risk of blowing up both OC and CC, but failed to assure that his amendment was identical to the House version so he could save the additional time and risk of sending it back for concurrence.

<insert facepalm here>

I was really feeling good about HB910 until I read some are wondering if the Gov. might be signaling a veto if it arrives on his desk with the Huffines/Dutton amendment attached. Has something to do with a tweet the Gov. made last night. I thought if it got to his desk we would be good to go based on his past statements about signing an OC bill that arrives on his desk.

Does HB910 as approved last night allow cities with a population greater than 750K to enact ordinances preventing OC? Rumors are flying everywhere.

" It might not be all the way there, but because of Senator Huffines, it's a lot closer that it was before his amendment."

Really? Seriously? If Huffine did not have his amendment the Bill would have passed hours before it did so saying that it is closer because of his amendment is being intellectually dishonest and misleading then again so was Huffine saying that he had support from an organization that opposed his Amendment.

His amendment had a very good chance of killing the Bill, fortunately it did not happen. He stated numerous times that his Amendment was the exact same as the House version, we now know it is not so back to the House it goes and hopefully gets a vote.....

Being a Monday morning quarterback is fine if it goes your way, had it blown up the Bill everybody would be looking to hang him, it comes down to risk versus reward and IMO it was not worth the risk..............

sig-sog wrote:Does HB910 as approved last night allow cities with a population greater than 750K to enact ordinances preventing OC? Rumors are flying everywhere.

Not sure where the ability to Opt out comes from but there was nothing in the Bill that granted that ability. Think you should find a better place to get your rumors.....

stash wrote:I was really feeling good about HB910 until I read some are wondering if the Gov. might be signaling a veto if it arrives on his desk with the Huffines/Dutton amendment attached. Has something to do with a tweet the Gov. made last night. I thought if it got to his desk we would be good to go based on his past statements about signing an OC bill that arrives on his desk.

Where is this tweet you speak of? I looked at the Gov's Twitter page and didn't see anything that would make me think a veto is possible.

Did the difference in wording make the bill better or worse? If it makes it better then great. It doesn't matter anyway. If the governor signs, it doesn't become law until January of next year regardless. So as I see it there's no big hurry. Just kidding! It will be great to get this finalized for sure.
I wonder how many will try and open carry before January because they heard the bill passed? This Senate passage yesterday didn't even make the front page in my local paper. It is a liberal rag for the most part, so maybe they don't want folks to know the Dems lost another one.

Kolamer wrote:

stash wrote:I was really feeling good about HB910 until I read some are wondering if the Gov. might be signaling a veto if it arrives on his desk with the Huffines/Dutton amendment attached. Has something to do with a tweet the Gov. made last night. I thought if it got to his desk we would be good to go based on his past statements about signing an OC bill that arrives on his desk.

Where is this tweet you speak of? I looked at the Gov's Twitter page and didn't see anything that would make me think a veto is possible.

I saw it ..It was on Breitbart Texas ..It was a Tweet by Gov. made no mention of him doing a Veto, I think it is there guess work.

Salty1 wrote:

sig-sog wrote:Does HB910 as approved last night allow cities with a population greater than 750K to enact ordinances preventing OC? Rumors are flying everywhere.

Not sure where the ability to Opt out comes from but there was nothing in the Bill that granted that ability. Think you should find a better place to get your rumors.....

Sig-sog, Please let me rephrase Salty1's response to you:

Welcome to the best forum on guns and CHL on the entire web. I see that this is your first post here, and I hope you'll join in on the discussion often. I want to tell you from personal experience that the folks on here are as generous with help and as friendly as possible, and you'll learn tons just from reading - and even more by posting as you did.

To answer your question...that was one of the earlier amendments a few months ago. Actually, there were a pair of amendments, one got approved, but it was only an amendment to another amendment that was tabled. So..to sum it up, there is no opt out provision in this bill anymore.

Thanks for joining in to the discussion!

Thank you for the kind welcome, Vol Texan. I have thick skin and took no offense to Salty1's post.

This is an awesome forum from all I have read over the years.