Search found 6 matches
Return to “HB 910 Conference Committee”
- Fri May 29, 2015 6:18 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 136419
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
Looks like Stickland was a yea
- Thu May 28, 2015 6:31 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 136419
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
I'm sorry, but you're just plain wrong here, Juno. The reason Huffman had the amendment pulled in committee is that she knew she didn't have the votes needed for passage on the floor with the Dutton amendment attached.juno106 wrote:Ok, I guess I can see your point.
I respectfully disagree, but I can see the argument to be made.
I will continue to argue that this is all Huffman's fault, as if the Dutton amendment was left in, the full Senate would have passed HB910 (as evidenced by the fact that they passed HB910 with the Huffines amendment), and it would have been off to the Governor, with no stops needed back at the House.
I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.
jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house
If you go back and look at the journal you will see the reason the Huffines amendment was adopted was because DEMS voted yea, some of the same that are threatening a fillibuster, they don't want OC at any cost. That's the only way Huffines was added to the bill. It's politics and strategy on their part and it still may work to kill the bill.
- Thu May 28, 2015 4:54 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 136419
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
I don't believe your rhetorical question is germane to the thread.arthurcw wrote:Would these be the same reporters who see an "ASSAULT WEAPON" every time a Hi-point is used?
- Thu May 28, 2015 2:44 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 136419
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
There is debate about whether they can dump the amendments completely, according to the rules, it sound like they can't.viking1000 wrote:Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .
All will be in the same room, doubtful if televised.
- Thu May 28, 2015 9:59 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 136419
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
I could not agree more w/ SS.ScooterSissy wrote:Not having a criminal history does not give one a CHL automatically. A member of an MC saying "he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL" doesn't mean that any of them actually have one. Actually, according to the law, membership in the gang makes them ineligible. Of course, they could lie and still get one; but we have nothing that says that happened.harrycallahan wrote:From the news. It has been reported that up to 75 % of the arrests did not have any prior criminal history. Additionally I have also seen a video interview where in it a member of one of the biker clubs (gangs) claims that he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL. I say claimed, because that is protect information and it won't be released. Whether it is true or not, it is the card law enforcement played to strike down HB 910. You've got to see that! In the house debate they did everything but spell it our for you by using key word after key word. Safety, tool box, hand cuff, protect ect...ScooterSissy wrote:Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.harrycallahan wrote:...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.
Disgusting!
Yes, it's one of the "cards" used to strike down 910, which is exactly why spreading unsubstantiated rumors is a bad idea.
Unless there is a source given that says some actually had a CHL, what you are stating is speculation, and it's bad for us.
PLEASE do not further the Anti 2A rhetoric by repeating unfounded, un-sourced garbage on the forum. They read this, as do legislators. This hurts our common cause.
- Thu May 28, 2015 9:46 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 136419
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
How is that relevant to the question being asked?chamberc wrote:What movement have you seen?ScooterSissy wrote:Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.harrycallahan wrote:...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.
Disgusting!
I second the question about CHL holders being part of the Waco fiasco. Additionally, membership in a street gang makes on ineligible to hold a CHL under current law.