TexasCHLforum.com

CleverNickname wrote:HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

Be careful what you wish for there. That has been used to ensure that the Legislature and ONLY the Legislature has that power. Otherwise cities would be free to create their own ordinances and regulations regulating the wearing of arms.

ralewis wrote:

chuck j wrote:Reciprocity in my thoughts .
Too risky . Studying the concealed carry law for a long trip is complicated with too many risks . Rather than suffering prosecution in other states I simply do not carry , reducing my travel . Would love to take my daughter to national parks and historical sites but not worth the risk . I'll stay in Texas . Sad but true .

I drive from TX to PA once a year to spend about a month there. The ridiculous stuff I've done to avoid 11miles of Maryland are worthy of a Seinfeld episode. I would like National Reciprocity-hopefully MD would be within scope since they are a 'may' issue-even if it only allowed me to carry in the car legally (without locking it up).

Again, HB560 refers to Texas House Bill 560 which has nothing to do with national reciprocity.

Keep in mind the House and Senate are adjourned until Monday, January 23. Our 140 day session once every 2 years has been shortened to effectively 126 days this biennium due to the inauguration in Washington DC this week. Keep that in mind when they run out of time to discuss important legislation.

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Russell wrote:Honest question - how can a Senator provide support for a house bill? I am going to call my senator today and want to know what it is I can actually ask her to do to provide support.

There are two ways. If a Senate companion bill is filed, they can sign onto it and/or support it. If no companion is filed, then they can support it when it comes to the Senate. Asking them for support now shows him/her that the bill has wide support and increases the chance of a companion bill being filed.

Chas.

As this is just my second legislative session to watch here I have to ask - is it better then to have a filed companion bill instead of the Senate just supporting the House bill when it comes to the Senate? Or with a companion bill does that risk the same form of problems that we saw last session with the House and Senate bills needing to go through reconciliation because of minor wording differences?

From what I can gather, having a companion bill gives better odds that the bill will make it through the process as it signals that there is support for it in both the House and Senate. Having a large number of co-authors also greatly increases the chances. The deal with companion bills is that only ONE of them will pass. It doesn't matter if they have identical language when they come out of committee and votes are cast on the floor in each chamber, one bill has to go through BOTH chambers and pass unchanged from the time it leaves the first to the time it is approved by the second for it to go to the Governor's desk.

If there are changes in the second chamber it visits, it goes back to the originating chamber and those changes are either approved and the bill goes to the governor, or it goes into conference committee. If the members of the committee can come to an agreement, the conference committee report then has to be approved by both chambers. If it is approved then it goes to the desk of the governor, if one chamber disapproves, bill dies.

Lots of opportunities here for a bill to die.

If you like flow charts or want a better description, you can see it here: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/docs/legref/gtli.pdf#page=7

They can pledge to support the bill once it reaches the Senate floor for debate.

I spoke recently with Rep. Krause's chief of staff and brought HB560 to his attention. He was unaware of the bill and thanked me for informing him about it. Hopefully he will be able to speak to Rep. Krause and make him aware of the bill and its importance to all LTC holders.

Scott Farkus wrote:

Russell wrote:On a different note, I hope we invest about 90% of our lobbying efforts towards this bill. I am personally way more interested in seeing this pass than constitutional carry this session.

I'm also far more interested in this than eliminating the LTC fees. I'll take both (and CC) of course, but hope we don't use all our chips on the others.

Is HB 560 going to be this session's HB 308, or will last session's HB 308 also be filed? Is one better than the other, or are they similar enough that it doesn't matter?

HB 560 (TX-85) is significantly more expansive than HB 308 (TX-84) was.

I'm pretty sure that Charles and others have stated that so-called constitutional carry is likely DOA this session. I agree that this bill and SB16 would be fantastic for gun owners in the State of Texas, with my preference being for HB 560 to receive the hardest push and the fewest (no) modifications. I LOVE this bill as is.

If last session is any indication, the bill that was reported out of house committee was severely gutted. I wouldn't be surprised to see the same treatment this year as well.

casp625 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Also does anyone know if the bill is identical or similar to the one filed last session?

HB308 mainly gutted all of 46.035 and exempted LTC from 46.03 while this bill primarily exempts LTC from 46.03, reduces some penalties of 46.035.

It does a heck of a lot more than that:

SECTION 11. The following provisions are repealed:
(1) Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
(2) Sections 411.203 and 411.204, Government Code;
(3) Section 52.062(b), Labor Code;
(4) Section 46.03(f), Penal Code, as amended by Chapters 437 (H.B. 910) and 1001 (H.B. 554), Acts of the 84th Legislature, Regular Session, 2015;
(5) Sections 46.035(b), (c), (f)(1), (i), (k), and (l), Penal Code; and
(6) Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, as added by Chapters 1214 (H.B. 1889) and 1222 (H.B. 2300), Acts of the 80th Legislature, Regular Session, 2007.