User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:11:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
I don't like SB11. There are too many restrictions on where once can carry and it lets private colleges ban carry. Letting private colleges and universities ban carry follows the logic of current law. Right now, every private business can ban carry just by posting a 30.06. Not letting private schools ban carry would mean that they have less rights than another private property owner. Now, I would support getting rid of 30.06, making all "no firearms" signs legally unenforceable and only making it crime for someone who's carrying to not leave the premises when verbally told to by the owner. Other states work like this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:24:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MateFrio:
From Matt Krause Since the Senate changed the bill before voting on it, HB 910 must go back to the House where the bill's author (Larry Phillips) can either concur in the changes or not concur. If the author concurs, then the bill goes to the Governor. If the author does not concur, then a conference committee is assembled on the House and Senate side. Then, those individuals hammer out the details and present it back to their chambers. But, I am fairly confident that Rep. Phillips will concur in the amended version and it will head to the governor's desk. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MateFrio:
From Matt Krause Since the Senate changed the bill before voting on it, HB 910 must go back to the House where the bill's author (Larry Phillips) can either concur in the changes or not concur. If the author concurs, then the bill goes to the Governor. If the author does not concur, then a conference committee is assembled on the House and Senate side. Then, those individuals hammer out the details and present it back to their chambers. But, I am fairly confident that Rep. Phillips will concur in the amended version and it will head to the governor's desk. If that is the case (only the author concurring), it shouldn't be an issue. The final version passed by the Senate still has not been posted to TLO, so I can't see what the differences are, but I'd be surprised if they were very significant. Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
You can look at who was voting for what on some of these amendments and probably make some educated guesses as to some elements of that deal. If HB910 is getting sent back to the House despite the Huffhine amendment, I'd guess that HB910 finishing in the House is part of the deal as well. That's an interesting point. If Dutton's amendment was removed as part of a deal to ensure that the House has the final say on the bill, it would explain a lot. It could be that the reason so many D's supported the amendment was to make it finish in the Senate and throw off the deal with respect to campus carry and the other bills that are held up in the House. That would also explain why Charles Cotton was so alarmed by the amendment, if it were jeopardizing other bills that he has been fighting for. But if the amendment was actually slightly different, perhaps Huffines was more wiley than he appeared. He may have modified Dutton's language intentionally (rather than due to copy-paste incompetence) to ensure that it would still finish in the House if the amendment were adopted, but then presented it on the floor as identical to Dutton's amendment. We'll probably never know what really went on, but it would be interesting to see. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:29:31 AM EDT
[#3]
I really want to know.
And we're not going to learn by talking to staffers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:30:25 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
I don't like SB11. There are too many restrictions on where once can carry and it lets private colleges ban carry. It's still better than our current situation. It does have some unfortunate language about private colleges, but the upshot is that they can only ban carry by posting a 30.06 sign, which is something any other private property owner can already do. Public colleges and universities would not be able to prohibit carry, and that's a big win. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 8:41:24 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: It's still better than our current situation. It does have some unfortunate language about private colleges, but the upshot is that they can only ban carry by posting a 30.06 sign, which is something any other private property owner can already do. Public colleges and universities would not be able to prohibit carry, and that's a big win. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: I don't like SB11. There are too many restrictions on where once can carry and it lets private colleges ban carry. It's still better than our current situation. It does have some unfortunate language about private colleges, but the upshot is that they can only ban carry by posting a 30.06 sign, which is something any other private property owner can already do. Public colleges and universities would not be able to prohibit carry, and that's a big win. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:35:11 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soowah:
It was killed in 2013 after passing both houses. It was at the goal line but it needed a floor vote for some changes. I don't recall the details on it though. We thought it would be taken up in the special sessions but abortion barbie burned a lot of time. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By soowah:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
If they pass a bill in both houses, can it still be killed by the conference committee or do they at least need to address it before the session ends? I really wouldn't worry too much. If both houses passed it and it's just a couple words out of place then they'll send it to Abbott. I think the Republicans want to pass this bill so that they can take it home. If it passed, I think it'll become law. It was killed in 2013 after passing both houses. It was at the goal line but it needed a floor vote for some changes. I don't recall the details on it though. We thought it would be taken up in the special sessions but abortion barbie burned a lot of time. No. It never even got a floor vote in the House because Ponch was the Public Safety Chair. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:45:35 AM EDT
[#7]
The reason the Hutton/Hoffines amendment received such a lopsided vote (some REP against and some DEMs for) is that it is not being viewed as connected with open carry, but rather an block for "ethnic" profiling. That's why the "inner city" representatives were all behind it.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:46:14 AM EDT
[#8]
it was obvious Huffines was getting counsel and acting out what is being told of him during the debate through that earpiece he kept fumbling around with
 . We'll soon find out through people who know people in the know, after all this is said and done.
You think a gold plated Desert Eagle is too subdued?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:07:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
I would still support it, but having gone to a private law school it hits close to home. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
Originally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
I don't like SB11. There are too many restrictions on where once can carry and it lets private colleges ban carry. It's still better than our current situation. It does have some unfortunate language about private colleges, but the upshot is that they can only ban carry by posting a 30.06 sign, which is something any other private property owner can already do. Public colleges and universities would not be able to prohibit carry, and that's a big win. South texas college of law? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:12:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: soowah]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
No. It never even got a floor vote in the House because Ponch was the Public Safety Chair. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By soowah:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
If they pass a bill in both houses, can it still be killed by the conference committee or do they at least need to address it before the session ends? I really wouldn't worry too much. If both houses passed it and it's just a couple words out of place then they'll send it to Abbott. I think the Republicans want to pass this bill so that they can take it home. If it passed, I think it'll become law. It was killed in 2013 after passing both houses. It was at the goal line but it needed a floor vote for some changes. I don't recall the details on it though. We thought it would be taken up in the special sessions but abortion barbie burned a lot of time. No. It never even got a floor vote in the House because Ponch was the Public Safety Chair. Looks like I maybe mis-remembering. I thought there was a companion bill to HB700 that passed out of the Senate. I can't find it anywhere, so I'll differ to your statement. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:20:06 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Texaspyro21: South texas college of law? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Texaspyro21: Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: Originally Posted By BobTheGreat: Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: I don't like SB11. There are too many restrictions on where once can carry and it lets private colleges ban carry. It's still better than our current situation. It does have some unfortunate language about private colleges, but the upshot is that they can only ban carry by posting a 30.06 sign, which is something any other private property owner can already do. Public colleges and universities would not be able to prohibit carry, and that's a big win. South texas college of law? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:36:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By v6pwr:
it was obvious Huffines was getting counsel and acting out what is being told of him during the debate through that earpiece he kept fumbling around with . We'll soon find out through people who know people in the know, after all this is said and done.
You think a gold plated Desert Eagle is too subdued? Can it be the Tiger striped gold plated one????? If your going to go pimp you have to go full pimp. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:21:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RCK1999:
The reason the Hutton/Hoffines amendment received such a lopsided vote (some REP against and some DEMs for) is that it is not being viewed as connected with open carry, but rather an block for "ethnic" profiling. That's why the "inner city" representatives were all behind it. That's exactly right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:25:03 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: If I'm the expert, we're all in trouble  There isn't really anything we can do with HB910 now and I think there is zero chance they don't move forward on a bill that has passed the House and Senate in the same practical form. I'd say OC is a done deal at this point. I'd say shift fire to the House and start putting pressure on them to get any/all of the already passed gun SBs languishing in House Calendars out for a vote ASAP - particularly SB11 (Campus Carry). I'd also keep an eye on TSRA and Charles Cotton's posts to see if they mention any particular person who might need special polite encouragement to help SB11 along. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: Originally Posted By AlamTX: Originally Posted By MateFrio: From Matt Krause Since the Senate changed the bill before voting on it, HB 910 must go back to the House where the bill's author (Larry Phillips) can either concur in the changes or not concur. If the author concurs, then the bill goes to the Governor. If the author does not concur, then a conference committee is assembled on the House and Senate side. Then, those individuals hammer out the details and present it back to their chambers. But, I am fairly confident that Rep. Phillips will concur in the amended version and it will head to the governor's desk. If this is the case, then we know who to call. Before we call THIS time, I'd like to hear from some of our resident legal experts like Bartholomew_Roberts. There seems to be a lot of confusion, still. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile If I'm the expert, we're all in trouble There isn't really anything we can do with HB910 now and I think there is zero chance they don't move forward on a bill that has passed the House and Senate in the same practical form. I'd say OC is a done deal at this point. I'd say shift fire to the House and start putting pressure on them to get any/all of the already passed gun SBs languishing in House Calendars out for a vote ASAP - particularly SB11 (Campus Carry). I'd also keep an eye on TSRA and Charles Cotton's posts to see if they mention any particular person who might need special polite encouragement to help SB11 along.  Thank you, sir.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:26:54 AM EDT
[#15]
Thank you to all the members with a legal background.
You guys are very helpful to the rest of us simpletons. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:43:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: vipergts]
[#16]
Could someone please post the Huffines vs Dutton amendment language as it was approved in each body?
ETA: What exactly are the differences? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:46:54 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TXBO:
That's exactly right. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TXBO:
Originally Posted By RCK1999:
The reason the Hutton/Hoffines amendment received such a lopsided vote (some REP against and some DEMs for) is that it is not being viewed as connected with open carry, but rather an block for "ethnic" profiling. That's why the "inner city" representatives were all behind it. That's exactly right. That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:49:19 AM EDT
[#18]
I'm going to start my own Texas hate thread in GD.
I'm usually in on them defending us, but I HATE TEXAS POLITICS !! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:53:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: Originally Posted By TXBO: Originally Posted By RCK1999: The reason the Hutton/Hoffines amendment received such a lopsided vote (some REP against and some DEMs for) is that it is not being viewed as connected with open carry, but rather an block for "ethnic" profiling. That's why the "inner city" representatives were all behind it. That's exactly right. That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:54:46 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By TXBO:
Originally Posted By RCK1999:
The reason the Hutton/Hoffines amendment received such a lopsided vote (some REP against and some DEMs for) is that it is not being viewed as connected with open carry, but rather an block for "ethnic" profiling. That's why the "inner city" representatives were all behind it. That's exactly right. That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. A few REPs feel that it unreasonably restricts LEO from confronting a suitably profiled individual. A few DEMS feel it protects those suitably profiled individuals from being unreasonably harassed by LEO. It boils down to a race issue. Not surprising - look at Baltimore, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:56:27 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1fromtx:
I'm going to start my own Texas hate thread in GD. I'm usually in on them defending us, but I HATE TEXAS ALL POLITICS !!
FIXED FOR YA
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:05:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vipergts:
Could someone please post the Huffines vs Dutton amendment language as it was approved in each body? ETA: What exactly are the differences? Here is an ugly cut & paste of the Hutton amendment. I can't find the Huffines text. Still looking. Amend HBi910 on third reading by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION to the bill and renumbering subsequent SECTIONS of the bill accordingly: SECTIONi____.iiSubchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows: Sec.i411.2049.iiCERTAIN 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. Amendment No. 3 was adopted by (Record 295): 133 Yeas, 10 Nays, 1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:13:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RCK1999:
A few REPs feel that it unreasonably restricts LEO from confronting a suitably profiled individual. A few DEMS feel it protects those suitably profiled individuals from being unreasonably harassed by LEO. It boils down to a race issue. Not surprising - look at Baltimore, etc. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RCK1999:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. A few REPs feel that it unreasonably restricts LEO from confronting a suitably profiled individual. A few DEMS feel it protects those suitably profiled individuals from being unreasonably harassed by LEO. It boils down to a race issue. Not surprising - look at Baltimore, etc. Hopefully that's all it is and not part of some larger behind-the-scenes fight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:19:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Hopefully that's all it is and not part of some larger behind-the-scenes fight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Originally Posted By RCK1999:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. A few REPs feel that it unreasonably restricts LEO from confronting a suitably profiled individual. A few DEMS feel it protects those suitably profiled individuals from being unreasonably harassed by LEO. It boils down to a race issue. Not surprising - look at Baltimore, etc. Hopefully that's all it is and not part of some larger behind-the-scenes fight. I think there is a larger behind the scenes fight about Campus Carry. I just hope HB910 doesn't get pulled into the fight. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 12:20:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By TXBO:
Originally Posted By RCK1999:
The reason the Hutton/Hoffines amendment received such a lopsided vote (some REP against and some DEMs for) is that it is not being viewed as connected with open carry, but rather an block for "ethnic" profiling. That's why the "inner city" representatives were all behind it. That's exactly right. That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. Yea, it's disappointing but there is a wide gap in philosophy between the conservative and moderate Republicans. Huffman is a moderate. Huffines is a conservative. This bill would have never gotten out of her committee with the Dutton amendment. Many underestimated the support for the amendment and the bill with or without the amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:05:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TomB7777]
[#26]
Why do people keep saying it has to go back to the house when the Texas Legislature web site says it goes straight to the Governor?
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:09:42 PM EDT
[#27]
I was working late and missed all of this, but thanks for the play by play narrative. I've been reading through and was able to get the gist of it from y'alls posts.
One big step closer...
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:27:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TomB7777:
Why do people keep saying it has to go back to the house when the Texas Legislature web site says it goes straight to the Governor? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910 The website doesn't have a stage for concurrence. There is a slight difference in language of the Dutton and Huffines amendments. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:36:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TXBO:
The website doesn't have a stage for concurrence. There is a slight difference in language of the Dutton and Huffines amendments. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TXBO:
Originally Posted By TomB7777:
Why do people keep saying it has to go back to the house when the Texas Legislature web site says it goes straight to the Governor? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910 The website doesn't have a stage for concurrence. There is a slight difference in language of the Dutton and Huffines amendments. Does ANYONE know what that slight difference is? The SB17 Huffines amendment as passed does not appear to be available online like the Dutton version. If the difference is between MAY or SHALL language, could be a deal killer!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 1:37:05 PM EDT
[#30]
I feel like I'm being worse with holsters than my girlfriend is with dresses LoL I keep looking at them and cant find the perfect one! hahahaha
hooray for progress!! |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 2:32:09 PM EDT
[#31]
any news when the next vote or trip to the Gov will take place ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 2:47:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vipergts:
Does ANYONE know what that slight difference is? The SB17 Huffines amendment as passed does not appear to be available online like the Dutton version. If the difference is between MAY or SHALL language, could be a deal killer!!! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vipergts:
Originally Posted By TXBO:
Originally Posted By TomB7777:
Why do people keep saying it has to go back to the house when the Texas Legislature web site says it goes straight to the Governor? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910 The website doesn't have a stage for concurrence. There is a slight difference in language of the Dutton and Huffines amendments. Does ANYONE know what that slight difference is? The SB17 Huffines amendment as passed does not appear to be available online like the Dutton version. If the difference is between MAY or SHALL language, could be a deal killer!!! I don't think anyone has seen the actual text of the amendment yet. I've heard that only one word is different, but that could be incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 3:37:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Update emails from Patrick are saying it's going to the governor?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 3:42:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Hopefully that's all it is and not part of some larger behind-the-scenes fight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Originally Posted By RCK1999:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
That would explain certain anti-gun Dems voting for it. It doesn't explain key pro-gun people voting against it, the repeated efforts to strip it out in the Senate, or why there is even a fight over such a redundant, meaningless amendment. A few REPs feel that it unreasonably restricts LEO from confronting a suitably profiled individual. A few DEMS feel it protects those suitably profiled individuals from being unreasonably harassed by LEO. It boils down to a race issue. Not surprising - look at Baltimore, etc. Hopefully that's all it is and not part of some larger behind-the-scenes fight. For all we know, we are just speculating at this point why this or that. For certain, one straight anti-gun Dem outright said the only reason he's supporting the WHOLE bill is because it in itself contains Huffines amendment to prevent racial profiling of open carriers. As for the Reps that was against it, most likely because they wanted to play safe and just want to pass a clean bill to assure passage and did not want to muddy or delay or risk losing the entire bill due to back and forth. For certain, there's talks behind closed doors, but I doubt it's a fight...more like a work-it-out-together sort of thing. They're more gentemen/lady than you think. Look at Senator Huffman when she was so insistent on her amendment, but after the inquiry and small talk amongst the group, she pulled her amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 3:49:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: motown_steve]
[#35]
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/22/texas-open-carry-bill-senate-passes-minor-changes-force-it-back-to-the-house/
Voting against the bill were Senators Garcia, Hinojosa, Huffman, Lucio, Rodriguez, Uresti, Watson, West, Whitmire and Zaffirini. 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. Keith Elkins, Communications Director for the Lt. Governor told Breitbart Texas the Senate will work with the House tomorrow to try and resolve the different versions and get concurrence. Governor Abbott has consistently said he would sign whatever open carry bill came to his desk. However, a Friday evening tweet by the Governor made some wonder if he was signaling a possible veto of the bill if it contained the Dutton/Huffines amendment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 3:55:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vandy58:
Update emails from Patrick are saying it's going to the governor?!?!?! Could you "cut and paste" a copy of that email and post for the rest of us? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 4:02:00 PM EDT
[#37]
"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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 5:44:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Once this goes to the governor for signature, please push the SB 476 for the NFA bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:33:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By motown_steve:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By motown_steve:
"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. The Senate already passed it. Why would it need to go back there (if unamended)? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 6:38:07 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By motown_steve:
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/22/texas-open-carry-bill-senate-passes-minor-changes-force-it-back-to-the-house/ Voting against the bill were Senators Garcia, Hinojosa, Huffman, Lucio, Rodriguez, Uresti, Watson, West, Whitmire and Zaffirini. 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. Keith Elkins, Communications Director for the Lt. Governor told Breitbart Texas the Senate will work with the House tomorrow to try and resolve the different versions and get concurrence. Governor Abbott has consistently said he would sign whatever open carry bill came to his desk. However, a Friday evening tweet by the Governor made some wonder if he was signaling a possible veto of the bill if it contained the Dutton/Huffines amendment. I looked on both of his Twitter feeds and couldn't find anything like that. What did the tweet say? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 9:57:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dino]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dan45678: I looked on both of his Twitter feeds and couldn't find anything like that. What did the tweet say? It's a "I support the police" thing. That was the justification used in the debates for not wanting the amendment to disallow questioning people solely for openly carrying a firearm. It also has bunch of cops tweeting him asking him to veto the Huffines amendment. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:06:54 PM EDT
[#42]
If he goes back on his word over a legislative affirmation of something the SCOTUS has already decided, a lot of folks are going to be more than a little upset.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:14:10 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StealthCRF: If he goes back on his word over a legislative affirmation of something the SCOTUS has already decided, a lot of folks are going to be more than a little upset. And, it re-affirms my position that people are going to get harassed by the police. All people and all police? No. But would you want to open carry in Austin or Houston? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 10:59:38 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By motown_steve:
And, it re-affirms my position that people are going to get harassed by the police. All people and all police? No. But would you want to open carry in Austin or Houston? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By motown_steve:
Originally Posted By StealthCRF:
If he goes back on his word over a legislative affirmation of something the SCOTUS has already decided, a lot of folks are going to be more than a little upset. And, it re-affirms my position that people are going to get harassed by the police. All people and all police? No. But would you want to open carry in Austin or Houston? I will |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:19:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vandy58:
I will Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vandy58:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Originally Posted By StealthCRF:
If he goes back on his word over a legislative affirmation of something the SCOTUS has already decided, a lot of folks are going to be more than a little upset. And, it re-affirms my position that people are going to get harassed by the police. All people and all police? No. But would you want to open carry in Austin or Houston? I will Then you'll be happy this amendment passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:29:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino:
https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/601950917307445248 It's a "I support the police" thing. That was the justification used in the debates for not wanting the amendment to disallow questioning people solely for openly carrying a firearm. It also has bunch of cops tweeting him asking him to veto the Huffines amendment. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dino:
Originally Posted By dan45678:
I looked on both of his Twitter feeds and couldn't find anything like that. What did the tweet say? It's a "I support the police" thing. That was the justification used in the debates for not wanting the amendment to disallow questioning people solely for openly carrying a firearm. It also has bunch of cops tweeting him asking him to veto the Huffines amendment. If that has any truth to it at all, he's going to get mobbed (as he should).  He campaigned specifically on open carry, and vetoing it after a session like this would be political suicide - he must know that.
Again, the amendment doesn't prohibit anything other than bad cops abusing their authority. It's redundant and unnecessary, but it's in there now, so let's accept it and get on with things. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:33:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
If that has any truth to it at all, he's going to get mobbed (as he should). He campaigned specifically on open carry, and vetoing it after a session like this would be political suicide - he must know that.
Again, the amendment doesn't prohibit anything other than bad cops abusing their authority. It's redundant and unnecessary, but it's in there now, so let's accept it and get on with things. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Originally Posted By Dino:
Originally Posted By dan45678:
I looked on both of his Twitter feeds and couldn't find anything like that. What did the tweet say? It's a "I support the police" thing. That was the justification used in the debates for not wanting the amendment to disallow questioning people solely for openly carrying a firearm. It also has bunch of cops tweeting him asking him to veto the Huffines amendment. If that has any truth to it at all, he's going to get mobbed (as he should). He campaigned specifically on open carry, and vetoing it after a session like this would be political suicide - he must know that.
Again, the amendment doesn't prohibit anything other than bad cops abusing their authority. It's redundant and unnecessary, but it's in there now, so let's accept it and get on with things. While I agree with you that a veto would be rediculous, how many politicians lost their jobs for not passing open carry or campus carry the last two sessions? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:33:37 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TXBO:
Then you'll be happy this amendment passed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TXBO:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Originally Posted By StealthCRF:
If he goes back on his word over a legislative affirmation of something the SCOTUS has already decided, a lot of folks are going to be more than a little upset. And, it re-affirms my position that people are going to get harassed by the police. All people and all police? No. But would you want to open carry in Austin or Houston? I will Then you'll be happy this amendment passed. I will also, and I'm happy with the bill with or without the amendment. If nothing else, it might save someone (maybe even me) some trouble from an overly ambitious officer, even if he knows he doesn't have anything that would actually stick. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/23/2015 11:40:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 74novaman:
While I agree with you that a veto would be rediculous, how many politicians lost their jobs for not passing open carry or campus carry the last two sessions? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 74novaman:
Originally Posted By BobTheGreat:
If that has any truth to it at all, he's going to get mobbed (as he should). He campaigned specifically on open carry, and vetoing it after a session like this would be political suicide - he must know that.
Again, the amendment doesn't prohibit anything other than bad cops abusing their authority. It's redundant and unnecessary, but it's in there now, so let's accept it and get on with things. While I agree with you that a veto would be rediculous, how many politicians lost their jobs for not passing open carry or campus carry the last two sessions? If he actually vetoed this bill, I would try my damndest to make him the first. I don't think I would be alone. This is all speculation though. I remain confident that he will sign it and milk every it of credit from it he can. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:10:02 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 74novaman:
While I agree with you that a veto would be rediculous, how many politicians lost their jobs for not passing open carry or campus carry the last two sessions? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 74novaman:
Originally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Originally Posted By Dino:
Originally Posted By dan45678:
I looked on both of his Twitter feeds and couldn't find anything like that. What did the tweet say? It's a "I support the police" thing. That was the justification used in the debates for not wanting the amendment to disallow questioning people solely for openly carrying a firearm. It also has bunch of cops tweeting him asking him to veto the Huffines amendment. If that has any truth to it at all, he's going to get mobbed (as he should). He campaigned specifically on open carry, and vetoing it after a session like this would be political suicide - he must know that.
Again, the amendment doesn't prohibit anything other than bad cops abusing their authority. It's redundant and unnecessary, but it's in there now, so let's accept it and get on with things. While I agree with you that a veto would be rediculous, how many politicians lost their jobs for not passing open carry or campus carry the last two sessions? Ann Richards vetoed the original CHL bill the legislature passed. She was a one term governor. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
