User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 8:29:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Is it possible to override a veto?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 8:40:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: soowah]
[#2]
Well honestly his actions are: Sign, bill becomes law, don't sign and bill becomes law after (20 days iirc), or veto. I don't think there is a veto proof majority.
He had better sign after running on that platform.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:38:52 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Iram:
Is it possible to override a veto? Not after the session ends. By bringing it to him this late in the session, the legislature basically ensured that they won't be put in the position of a veto override. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:45:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Not after the session ends. By bringing it to him this late in the session, the legislature basically ensured that they won't be put in the position of a veto override. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Originally Posted By Iram:
Is it possible to override a veto? Not after the session ends. By bringing it to him this late in the session, the legislature basically ensured that they won't be put in the position of a veto override. Those slow ass mother fuckers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:55:08 AM EDT
[#5]
Can anyone confirm now whether the bill is actually going back to the House or not, and when? We need coordinated action on either the House or Governor's office once it moves.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:55:52 AM EDT
[#6]
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 I'm going to go out of my way to open carry in Austin. ASSavedos should know better than to order the harassment of law abiding citizens, but being the Nazi POS shit that he is, he will probably push it. ASSavedos trys this time to take him to court. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:20:28 AM EDT
[#7]
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? Abbot would be a one term governor if he veto's this bill. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 10:25:16 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
Can anyone confirm now whether the bill is actually going back to the House or not, and when? We need coordinated action on either the House or Governor's office once it moves. Email update from TSRA on May 23rd at 7:15 PM: Last Night and HB 910
Most of yesterday afternoon and late into the night the Senate debated HB 910-Licensed Open Carry by Rep. Larry Phillips (R-Sherman) and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls). After heated debate on various amendments HB 910 passed along party lines. Is this the final step to Governor Abbott's desk? It Should Be! Much of last night's Senate debate centered on an amendment referred to as the Dutton amendment. The amendment had been added to HB 910 on April 20th before the final vote and passage in the House . Then the Dutton Amendment was stripped from HB 910 by Senate State Affairs Committee at the request of committee Chairman Joan Huffman (R-Houston). Last night during the Senate floor debate, language similar but not identical to the Dutton Amendment, was offered and successfully added by Senator Huffines (R-Dallas). Again, Senator Huffines' language was remarkably similar but not identical to the House version. The purpose of Dutton and Huffines Amendments is to add probable cause language to the section of law which deals with a licensee carrying an exposed handgun and law enforcement. Simply seeing an exposed handgun cannot be the sole reason for being stopped or detained. No, this is not a "backdoor" approach to constitutional carry. Carrying a handgun, concealed or exposed, without the state-issued license is a criminal offense in Texas. Probable cause is ingrained and a part of current Texas law. Some in the Senate consider the amendment to be redundant and unnecessary and potentially harmful for law enforcement. Our objective is to protect the underlying Open Carry bill for Texas gun owners. Governor Abbott A long-time friend to Texas gun owners and to TSRA, Governor Greg Abbott will sign HB 910 but first the measure must return to the House for a review on the Senate changes. Effective Date The effective date for licensed open carry is January 1, 2016. The delayed date came from DPS. The delay was requested because the agency holds their instructor certification training during the 4th quarter of the year, plus wanted time to update their website and make changes to the program and program materials. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:38:09 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
I'm going to go out of my way to open carry in Austin. ASSavedos should know better than to order the harassment of law abiding citizens, but being the Nazi POS shit that he is, he will probably push it. ASSavedos trys this time to take him to court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
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 I'm going to go out of my way to open carry in Austin. ASSavedos should know better than to order the harassment of law abiding citizens, but being the Nazi POS shit that he is, he will probably push it. ASSavedos trys this time to take him to court. I think Chief Acevedo fucked himself pretty well with his comments on that. When you have the Chief of Police basically saying to the press and legislature "I'm going to violate the Fourth Amendment for Open Carriers", it is going to be hard to claim qualified immunity regardless of whether you have the Dutton Amendment in the bill or not. I hope he gets named in his personal capacity in any resulting suits so that the Austin taxpayers don't end up paying for his bigotry alone. It was doubly stupid of him given how much of the OCT and OCTC protests have been geared towards generating exactly those types of paydays. He might as well have tied steaks to himself and jumped into a wolf kennel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:47:57 AM EDT
[#10]
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
I think Chief Acevedo fucked himself pretty well with his comments on that. When you have the Chief of Police basically saying to the press and legislature "I'm going to violate the Fourth Amendment for Open Carriers", it is going to be hard to claim qualified immunity regardless of whether you have the Dutton Amendment in the bill or not. I hope he gets named in his personal capacity in any resulting suits so that the Austin taxpayers don't end up paying for his bigotry alone. It was doubly stupid of him given how much of the OCT and OCTC protests have been geared towards generating exactly those types of paydays. He might as well have tied steaks to himself and jumped into a wolf kennel. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
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 I'm going to go out of my way to open carry in Austin. ASSavedos should know better than to order the harassment of law abiding citizens, but being the Nazi POS shit that he is, he will probably push it. ASSavedos trys this time to take him to court. I think Chief Acevedo fucked himself pretty well with his comments on that. When you have the Chief of Police basically saying to the press and legislature "I'm going to violate the Fourth Amendment for Open Carriers", it is going to be hard to claim qualified immunity regardless of whether you have the Dutton Amendment in the bill or not. I hope he gets named in his personal capacity in any resulting suits so that the Austin taxpayers don't end up paying for his bigotry alone. It was doubly stupid of him given how much of the OCT and OCTC protests have been geared towards generating exactly those types of paydays. He might as well have tied steaks to himself and jumped into a wolf kennel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 11:52:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:40:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 12:50:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Nice, very nice. Does he remember your name? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 1:16:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this then; but for others, all joking aside, if you want to do something like this talk with an attorney experienced in 42 USC Sec. 1983 litigation before you try that. You've got a real trophy fish possibility but you won't get too many chances to set the hook. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 2:02:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 338winmag:
Nice, very nice. Does he remember your name? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 338winmag:
Originally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Nice, very nice. Does he remember your name? He shit a brick when he saw me at one of his press conferences. He was in the court room when I had his boss Spike Helmickk put in jail for contempt for refusing the answer questions on the stand. Thoe look on ASSAvdo's face when the judge ordered the bailiff to remove Helmick's gun belt and take him into custody until he was ready to answer my questions. I was my own attorney on that case, was in Oakland in Superior Court, won against the CHP and the CHP wanted the DOJ to take it to the Supreme Court |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 3:10:25 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
He shit a brick when he saw me at one of his press conferences. He was in the court room when I had his boss Spike Helmickk put in jail for contempt for refusing the answer questions on the stand. Thoe look on ASSAvdo's face when the judge ordered the bailiff to remove Helmick's gun belt and take him into custody until he was ready to answer my questions. I was my own attorney on that case, was in Oakland in Superior Court, won against the CHP and the CHP wanted the DOJ to take it to the Supreme Court Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
Originally Posted By 338winmag:
Originally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Nice, very nice. Does he remember your name? He shit a brick when he saw me at one of his press conferences. He was in the court room when I had his boss Spike Helmickk put in jail for contempt for refusing the answer questions on the stand. Thoe look on ASSAvdo's face when the judge ordered the bailiff to remove Helmick's gun belt and take him into custody until he was ready to answer my questions. I was my own attorney on that case, was in Oakland in Superior Court, won against the CHP and the CHP wanted the DOJ to take it to the Supreme Court You're my new hero. 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 4:29:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Glad to have you in Texas.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 5:15:00 PM EDT
[#18]
The look on his face, again..seeing you open carry....in Texas! Bwahaha! "Buhbuhbuh....I left Kalifornia, what are you doing following me to Texas?!"
priceless!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 6:38:04 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
If it means getting him out of power I am all for being the guinea pig I don't know if even that would be enough to get him out of power in Austin; but at least you could enjoy tooling around town in Acevedo's personal vehicle and sleeping in his home. I sued ASSAvedo's boos at the CHP twice and won both times. One over the helmet law, where the Cali Supreme Count came down with the decision that 'If you are wearing a motorcycle helmet, leave the motorcycle alone, the CHP can not make up it's own standards, when the law calls out DOT standard 218' Also stopped the abuses on drunk driver check points, that 'officers can only use their normal senses, not breathalizers, blood tests to tell if you are drunk in them, also no checking licenses, insurance, searching vehicle. In addition the drunk driver check points had to be approved by the Cal DOJ 7 days before and published in the newspaper and online (if available this was in early 90's) 72 hours before for 2 days in the newspaper. They were also to only do them on the date, time and location approved by the Cal DOJ.' Newark CA tried this crap after the decision, the Chief, two Lieutenants and a Sergeant lost their jobs. The Chief lost his home, his retirement and a nice 57 Chevy over his false ordering of the checkpoints. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Great job, man. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:41:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Pontifex_Mortis:
Glad to have you in Texas. X2 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2015 9:52:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DonKey153]
[#21]
While we're all contacting our reps, SB11(campus carry) is coming up for a vote soon in the house and could use all of our support.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 12:34:11 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153:
While we're all contacting our reps, SB11(campus carry) is coming up for a vote soon in the house and could use all of our support. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 3:56:37 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
I think Chief Acevedo fucked himself pretty well with his comments on that. When you have the Chief of Police basically saying to the press and legislature "I'm going to violate the Fourth Amendment for Open Carriers", it is going to be hard to claim qualified immunity regardless of whether you have the Dutton Amendment in the bill or not. I hope he gets named in his personal capacity in any resulting suits so that the Austin taxpayers don't end up paying for his bigotry alone. It was doubly stupid of him given how much of the OCT and OCTC protests have been geared towards generating exactly those types of paydays. He might as well have tied steaks to himself and jumped into a wolf kennel. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By DonofKalifornia:
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 I'm going to go out of my way to open carry in Austin. ASSavedos should know better than to order the harassment of law abiding citizens, but being the Nazi POS shit that he is, he will probably push it. ASSavedos trys this time to take him to court. I think Chief Acevedo fucked himself pretty well with his comments on that. When you have the Chief of Police basically saying to the press and legislature "I'm going to violate the Fourth Amendment for Open Carriers", it is going to be hard to claim qualified immunity regardless of whether you have the Dutton Amendment in the bill or not. I hope he gets named in his personal capacity in any resulting suits so that the Austin taxpayers don't end up paying for his bigotry alone. It was doubly stupid of him given how much of the OCT and OCTC protests have been geared towards generating exactly those types of paydays. He might as well have tied steaks to himself and jumped into a wolf kennel. This thought makes me giddy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 7:55:02 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By v6pwr:
The look on his face, again..seeing you open carry....in Texas! Bwahaha! "Buhbuhbuh....I left Kalifornia, what are you doing following me to Texas?!" priceless!I left Kali first, been here over 8 years, ASSavedos followed me. He always wanted to be the 'big fish' in the pond, his plan was to be the first Hispanic head of the CHP. Unfortunately after he stuck his head up Himlick's ass real far, when Himlick got fired as head on the CHP in '03, ASSavedos was on the fast track to retirement, not his ultimate goal. Austin was looking for a Chief and on paper ASSavedos had many of them, but as the liberal retards that run Austin, they picked some one to do their B.S. and enjoy being a lighting rod. Nothing the guy does really surprises me, I've seen Himlick do it all before. Fortunately ASSavedos is just a Chief, not head of the main law enforcement of the state (DPS), so his word to other law enforcement mean no more than yours and mine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 8:35:43 AM EDT
[#25]
Any new word on HB910?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 9:59:43 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vandy58:
Any new word on HB910? This. Yall should start your own Acevedo thread. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 10:45:14 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbear_98:
This. Yall should start your own Acevedo thread. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigbear_98:
Originally Posted By Vandy58:
Any new word on HB910? This. Yall should start your own Acevedo thread. That would be an epic thread |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:54:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MadMonkey]
[#28]
I got this 20 minutes ago:
84(R) HB 910 Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offenses. 5/25/2015 H Senate passage as amended reported What's it mean?  I wish there was a definite word on whether it's now going to the House. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 3:33:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MadMonkey:
I got this 20 minutes ago: 84(R) HB 910 Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offenses. 5/25/2015 H Senate passage as amended reported What's it mean? I wish there was a definite word on whether it's now going to the House. An update. The analysis of the bill has been distributed to the house members. This just shows what has been change from the original bill. The author can concur with the changes and the bill goes to the governor or he can not concur which sends it for a floor vote. Maybe Wednesday will be the day for final action by the house. In other news sb11 comes up Tuesday on the house floor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 4:16:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ar15hookem:
An update. The analysis of the bill has been distributed to the house members. This just shows what has been change from the original bill. The author can concur with the changes and the bill goes to the governor or he can not concur which sends it for a floor vote. Maybe Wednesday will be the day for final action by the house. In other news sb11 comes up Tuesday on the house floor. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ar15hookem:
Originally Posted By MadMonkey:
I got this 20 minutes ago: 84(R) HB 910 Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offenses. 5/25/2015 H Senate passage as amended reported What's it mean? I wish there was a definite word on whether it's now going to the House. An update. The analysis of the bill has been distributed to the house members. This just shows what has been change from the original bill. The author can concur with the changes and the bill goes to the governor or he can not concur which sends it for a floor vote. Maybe Wednesday will be the day for final action by the house. In other news sb11 comes up Tuesday on the house floor. If all we need is the author to agree, who's the author? All I'm finding online is a long list of co-sponsors. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 4:36:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Would someone mind summarizing? This shit has me confused now, and I'm usually pretty good at keeping track of the legislative process. What happened with the amendment?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 4:40:35 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TexasRifleman1985:
Would someone mind summarizing? This shit has me confused now, and I'm usually pretty good at keeping track of the legislative process. What happened with the amendment? The Senate changes to HB910 have been distributed to the House along with an analysis of what the differences are. Chances are extrelemy good (IMO) that the House author will concur with these changes and they'll go to the Governor. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 4:50:18 PM EDT
[#33]
I
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Iram:
If all we need is the author to agree, who's the author? All I'm finding online is a long list of co-sponsors. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Iram:
Originally Posted By ar15hookem:
Originally Posted By MadMonkey:
I got this 20 minutes ago: 84(R) HB 910 Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offenses. 5/25/2015 H Senate passage as amended reported What's it mean? I wish there was a definite word on whether it's now going to the House. An update. The analysis of the bill has been distributed to the house members. This just shows what has been change from the original bill. The author can concur with the changes and the bill goes to the governor or he can not concur which sends it for a floor vote. Maybe Wednesday will be the day for final action by the house. In other news sb11 comes up Tuesday on the house floor. If all we need is the author to agree, who's the author? All I'm finding online is a long list of co-sponsors. Phillips(spelling?) is the main author of the bill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 7:38:21 PM EDT
[#34]
The Senate amendment analysis is up on TLO. Here are the Dutton and Huffines amendments side by side, for anyone interested. Seems pretty inconsequential to me.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/senateamendana/pdf/HB00910A.pdf#navpanes=0 Dutton amendment, as passed by the House 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. Huffines amendment, as passed by the Senate 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 a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 7:49:46 PM EDT
[#35]
So stupid! Slightly different way of saying the same damn thing
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
The Senate amendment analysis is up on TLO. Here are the Dutton and Huffines amendments side by side, for anyone interested. Seems pretty inconsequential to me. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/senateamendana/pdf/HB00910A.pdf#navpanes=0 Dutton amendment, as passed by the House Huffines amendment, as passed by the Senate Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobTheGreat:
The Senate amendment analysis is up on TLO. Here are the Dutton and Huffines amendments side by side, for anyone interested. Seems pretty inconsequential to me. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/senateamendana/pdf/HB00910A.pdf#navpanes=0 Dutton amendment, as passed by the House 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. Huffines amendment, as passed by the Senate 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 a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 7:50:09 PM EDT
[#36]
Yeah, that's really a non issue.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 7:53:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RickH11]
[#37]
Why in the world didn't they just duplicate the words from Dutton ? Those guys know they have to match ! Something stinks , here !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 8:21:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RickH11:
Why in the world didn't they just duplicate the words from Dutton ? Those guys know they have to match ! Something stinks , here ! Either there's some kind of deal we aren't aware of, OR some intern sucks at copy/paste. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 8:34:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Iram:
Either there's some kind of deal we aren't aware of, OR some intern sucks at copy/paste. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Iram:
Originally Posted By RickH11:
Why in the world didn't they just duplicate the words from Dutton ? Those guys know they have to match ! Something stinks , here ! Either there's some kind of deal we aren't aware of, OR some intern sucks at copy/paste. You can bet your ass someone slipped that in to try to send it through the house again. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 8:47:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153:
You can bet your ass someone slipped that in to try to send it through the house again. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonKey153:
Originally Posted By Iram:
Originally Posted By RickH11:
Why in the world didn't they just duplicate the words from Dutton ? Those guys know they have to match ! Something stinks , here ! Either there's some kind of deal we aren't aware of, OR some intern sucks at copy/paste. You can bet your ass someone slipped that in to try to send it through the house again. Probably, but for good or bad reasons, we have no way to know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 9:05:43 PM EDT
[#41]
OK, just to ad some levity, sounds like a couple of lawyers.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 9:11:54 PM EDT
[#42]
One lawyer starves? Two lawyers get rich ? Except Huffines isn't a lawyer , but his two cohorts in the Senate the other night damn sure are !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:19:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bartholomew_Roberts]
[#43]
FYI: Campus Carry (SB11) and CHL Training (SB179 - .22LR allowed for range qual) both go up for a vote on the House floor tomorrow.
Looks like Shall Sign is dead. Any gun bills from the Senate that aren't unopposed are dead if they don't get their second reading tomorrow (doesn't affect HB910). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:30:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts: FYI: Campus Carry (SB11) and CHL Training (SB179 - .22LR allowed for range qual) both go up for a vote on the House floor tomorrow. Looks like Shall Sign is dead. Any gun bills from the Senate that aren't unopposed are dead if they don't get their second reading tomorrow (doesn't affect HB910).  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:41:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bartholomew_Roberts]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlamTX:
NFA shall sign is out? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlamTX:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
FYI: Campus Carry (SB11) and CHL Training (SB179 - .22LR allowed for range qual) both go up for a vote on the House floor tomorrow. Looks like Shall Sign is dead. Any gun bills from the Senate that aren't unopposed are dead if they don't get their second reading tomorrow (doesn't affect HB910). The HB is not far enough along to make it and the SB didn't make the calendar for tomorrow (last day to consider Senate Bills not already heard in the House). Technically, shall sign could still pass if nobody objects to it 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/25/2015 11:56:15 PM EDT
[#46]
Hb910 was just posted eligible for consideration at 2:40pm tomorrow. Means can be voted on then and states only one paragraph change from original bill. This should be the final vote if it happens then.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 12:15:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
The HB is not far enough along to make it and the SB didn't make the calendar for tomorrow (last day to consider Senate Bills not already heard in the House). Technically, shall sign could still pass if nobody objects to it Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By AlamTX:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
FYI: Campus Carry (SB11) and CHL Training (SB179 - .22LR allowed for range qual) both go up for a vote on the House floor tomorrow. Looks like Shall Sign is dead. Any gun bills from the Senate that aren't unopposed are dead if they don't get their second reading tomorrow (doesn't affect HB910). The HB is not far enough along to make it and the SB didn't make the calendar for tomorrow (last day to consider Senate Bills not already heard in the House). Technically, shall sign could still pass if nobody objects to it Technically is the operative word. Looks like I'm buying a few suppressors this week. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 9:03:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Festivities kick off at 10am although gun bills will probably be this afternoon:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 10:10:45 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
The HB is not far enough along to make it and the SB didn't make the calendar for tomorrow (last day to consider Senate Bills not already heard in the House). Technically, shall sign could still pass if nobody objects to it Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By AlamTX:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
FYI: Campus Carry (SB11) and CHL Training (SB179 - .22LR allowed for range qual) both go up for a vote on the House floor tomorrow. Looks like Shall Sign is dead. Any gun bills from the Senate that aren't unopposed are dead if they don't get their second reading tomorrow (doesn't affect HB910). The HB is not far enough along to make it and the SB didn't make the calendar for tomorrow (last day to consider Senate Bills not already heard in the House). Technically, shall sign could still pass if nobody objects to it I just called Straus' office reiterating SB 476 needs to be passed this session as it already passed the Senate without amendment, as well as the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee twice without amendment when including HB 1179, and has been teed-up for Calendars since May 7th. I respectfully stated this is not acceptable in any form for Texans who wish to have NFA registered suppressors should BATFE proceed with 41P later this year. In addition to pointing out the ambiguity given NFA-friendly SB 473 was on it's way for the Governor's signature. The Individual who took my call did not say it was too late to get it placed for vote, so we'll see... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 10:32:46 AM EDT
[#50]
Ok.
Please make a list of what we are watching for in House Senate |
|
|
|
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.
