TexasCHLforum.com

mr1337 wrote:

shootnfish wrote:I found this information about conference committees in the
Guide to Texas Legislative Information at http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... oncom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

" A conference committee’s charge is limited to reconciling differences between the two chambers, and the committee, unless so directed, may not alter, amend, or omit text that is not in disagreement. Nor may the committee add text on any matter that is not in disagreement or that is not included in either version of the bill in question."

So what can the conference committee legitimately do, when there are not any substantive differences between the bills?

I'm assuming this means that the committee must choose between the Dutton amendment and the Huffines amendment.

I don't see how that is going to help any more than just concurring the Huffines amendment if this is the case.

I found it interesting that so many changed their votes between the Dutton amendment and the concurrence vote. The political backlash from LEO groups must have been immense.

With or without the amendment, police still cannot detain a person without RS, so I wish they would have just done what gets HB910 passed. If that means go without the amendment, we still have the court cases to back us up.

You're right, the backlash was immense. Also, if the rules are actually applied as written, then the committee could very well not reach an agreement. If this were to occur, then House Democrats could filibuster the 2nd concurrence vote, if such a vote is actually permissible under House Rules.

Chas.

TexasObserver.com wrote:Ultimately, the House heeded the advice of law enforcement, and 79 representatives voted against accepting the Senate changes, sending the bill to conference committee. That left some lawmakers predicting the end of open carry, and worrying that it won’t get out of committee quickly enough to pass before the Legislature wraps up on Monday. Rinaldi tweeted: “The House just killed Open Carry.”

The appointed House conferees include the bill’s author, and other supporters of open carry, which gives the legislation a good chance to get out of committee. Still, Rinaldi might be on to something. At a Texas Tribune event Thursday morning, Sen. Jose Rodriguez (D-El Paso) said he’d filibuster open carry if given the opportunity. The bill must go back to both chamber for final approval once it leaves committee, so if it gets out late enough, Rodriguez could have the power to keep open carry from becoming law.

Full article at: http://www.texasobserver.org/a-house-di ... provision/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

Blindref757 wrote:Just spent some time on the OCT facebook page. Jon Jononymous sounds an awful lot like someone here at TexasCHLforum.com...someone who knows the system really well!

It's not me, if that's what you think.

Chas.

Rick Harris wrote:Charles, do you have any idea why Phillips didn't just move to table the Dutton amendment like he did the rest ?

This is purely a guess, but if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to alienate but minority Members who may vote for my bill as well as conservatives who like the idea behind the amendment. Again, there wasn't two minutes debate and it wasn't until after HB910 passed that everyone saw the backlash.

Again, that's pure speculation on my part.
Chas.

Tracker wrote:what nobody is talking about but what I'm seeing is that if HB910 dies then so does the $200 Class C misdemeanor for accidental 30.06 violations.

That will be a bigger loss than open-carry.

Chas.

This is not the greatest time for me to be posting, but I'll risk it anyway.

Anyone who wants to see gun rights continue to advance in Texas should avoid buying into the excuses being proffered by OCT apologists blaming anyone other than Huffines, Grisham and OCT. The "throw them all out" crowd are as destructive as OCT. To the COP-haters in our midst, you never win by insulting law enforcement in Texas. I don't care if you like it or not, that's the reality in the political/legislative world. The Legislature was/is willing to pass open-carry when many LEOs are concerned, but the unnecessary and ineffective Huffines amendment was one step too far. It was an insult and it gave anti-gunners like Sylvester Turner a bully pulpit to hammer the bill and force it into conference in the waning days of the session.

If HB910 dies, and it certainly may, it will be solely and exclusively Huffines' fault. He was told what would happen and he ignored it.

Chas.

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

v7a wrote:Presumably Republicans will be passing universal background checks next session. Because not to do so would be a slap in the face of law enforcement.

Now that's really helpful. Sincerely, thank you so much.

Deferring to the wishes of law enforcement is the cause of many of California's anti-gun laws (which passed with LEO support after LEO were exempted from the laws, such as the "Safe Handgun Roster" and ban on >10rd magazines). I'm simply suggesting it's not a good idea for Texas Republicans to be so willing to defer to law enforcement.

No, you made an absurd statement about universal background checks being the will of law enforcement.

Chas.

Overthehill wrote:But they voted for the Dutton Amendment. Huffines was the same as the one they approved. So maybe they never meant for it to pass in the first place as they possessed no logical reason to change their vote. Just how it appears from here.

The Dutton amendment came out of the blue and it wasn't debated for more than a couple of minutes. Then, predictably, the law enforcement community took offense and the backlash was huge. The Senate knew this, Huffines knew it and that's why the amendment was stripped in the Senate State Affairs Committee. There were not going to be 19 votes to consider HB910, if it came out of committee with the amendment intact.

To people who want to blame anyone other than Huffines, I hope you kept up with information and hints I was giving about HB910 and SB11. I can't ever tell everything I know, but people who have been following the Forum for a few legislative sessions know that when I make statements about risks, those statements are based upon facts, not conjecture or supposition.

HB910 isn't dead, but it certainly has one foot in the grave, a grave dug by Huffines, Grisham and OCT.

Chas.

v7a wrote:Presumably Republicans will be passing universal background checks next session. Because not to do so would be a slap in the face of law enforcement.

Now that's really helpful. Sincerely, thank you so much.

Chas.

Paragrouper wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thank you CJ Grisham/OCT and Sen. Huffines for setting up HB910 to be filibustered. The amendment provided no protection in the real world and it may well have killed open-carry. People can argue pro and con on the merits of the amendment until the Second Coming, but the fact is it may have killed the bill.

To those who care only about making a point, rather than a difference, I hope you're happy. Mount your high horse, pontificate for hours, but make sure you keep your handgun concealed while you do so. This is what happens when people who don't know what they are doing try to get involved in legislation that carries with it a high degree of emotion.

Chas.

Charles,

How many times do they have to throw us under the bus? I seriously begin to question what if anything they bring to our party except grief, poor public relations, resentment from most of our political friends, and an unwillingness to take a 90 % win when it is there to be had.

When I hear their statements and observe their tactics it's apparent to be that they are driven by their own egos. Not only must they win, but it must be won their way so they can prove their importance. They drive division into a house that should be united, then blame others and make threats when the opposition exploits the division's they've created.

Very well put and dead on point!

Chas.

Overthehill wrote:Thank you Senator Huffman for stripping the House Amendment and starting us on the road to failure. Pass it as the House originally sent it and voila it is done. Send it back without the Dutton Amendment and we are in the same place. Headed to conference committee. At least the Dems stand up and fight to the end, unlike some of the Republicans we just saw bail in the face of possible bad liberal press coverage.

What if she knew the votes to bring HB910 up for debate on the Senate Floor weren't there, if the Bill came out of committee with the Dutton amendment still in it?

Chas.

NotRPB wrote:

joe817 wrote:Just got back home. Have read the thread. Stickland(no r) is up. Is he trying to keep the bill alive?

@RepStickland & Simpson double teamed the chair&parlimentarian? #parliamentaryinquiry

I'm no lawyer
but what Parlimentarian read sounds like Cmttee is limited to language passed by Senate OR House (so Dutton OR Huffines) but can't add nor delete text ?

@RepStickland asserts they have a choice of grammar then, between Huffines or Dutton's 4 word difference is the limit of committee action

I'm not sure if an amendment could be "removed" by Huffines since it was voted ...

I'm officially lost in "Rules" now

They can add or delete as they wish. This is what killed HB508 last session when the House refused to approve the conference committee report.

Chas.

hovercat wrote:Also respectfully, what killed the bill was those who voted against it. Nothing else.

They didn't vote against the bill, they voted against the Huffines amendment that was a poison pill amendment. Huffines was told what his attempt to add his amendment was going to set up, but of course he ignored it. And all the while, Grisham was cheering him on. Watch both of them try to lay the blame on others, including long-time pro-gun House Members.

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thank you CJ Grisham/OCT and Sen. Huffines for setting up HB910 to be filibustered. The amendment provided no protection in the real world and it may well have killed open-carry.

People can argue pro and con on the merits of the amendment until the Second Coming, but the fact is it may have killed the bill.

Chas.

Respectfully Chas,

Huffines deserves SOME blame, but we would be just fine if this bill (or SB17) had been promptly assigned to committee after initially passing the house/senate instead of playing a game of chicken for weeks to see who blinks first.

Edited to fix typo

No, he deserves all of the blame because it was his amendment that is quite possible going to kill HB910. Yes, the Bill was not referred to a committee until 46 days after it arrived in the House and that's on the Speaker's shoulders. But in spite of that fact, HB910 would have passed today because the House would easily concurred with the stripping of the Dutton amendment. Huffines, Grisham & OCT are going to be responsible for HB910's defeat, if it comes to that.

Chas.

Thank you CJ Grisham/OCT and Sen. Huffines for setting up HB910 to be filibustered. The amendment provided no protection in the real world and it may well have killed open-carry. People can argue pro and con on the merits of the amendment until the Second Coming, but the fact is it may have killed the bill.

To those who care only about making a point, rather than a difference, I hope you're happy. Mount your high horse, pontificate for hours, but make sure you keep your handgun concealed while you do so. This is what happens when people who don't know what they are doing try to get involved in legislation that carries with it a high degree of emotion.

Chas.