TexasCHLforum.com

Callaway wrote:Not sure if credible...

Chuck Lindell ‏@chucklindell 2m2 minutes ago
Sen. @DonHuffines says he is disappointed his police-stop amendment got cut but, "I'm going to go along with the will of the body." #txlege

safety1 wrote:

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

soooo....what now? Both Chambers must vote right??
When?????

Ruark wrote:Please tell me if I'm understand this correctly. I'm trying to tell some other people about it, and it's hard to do when you're not sure of what you're saying.

If the conference committee doesn't come to agreement, the bill dies. I think that's a given.

If/when the bill comes back out of conference with nothing changed, the House will vote on it again. Since they voted against concurrence the first time (that's what sent it to committee in the first place), many feel there's a slim chance they would change their minds and vote for the same bill they just voted against. Matter of opinion here. Some of those reps said they still support it, they just wanted to send it to committee first. Phillips seems to feel that it would pass if it went through a second time.

The real danger is in the Senate. If/when the bill comes out of the conference committee and anything IS changed (e.g. the amendment is removed), it will have to be passed in both the House and the Senate, where Ellis, West and others will filibuster it until it dies.

Do I understand it correctly?

Thanks.

ScooterSissy wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

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!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

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.

Scott Farkus wrote:Agreed, but is it more risky to think it can get through the Senate again at this late date, with Ellis chomping at the bit to bolster his NRA F rating?

I seriously don't know. I guess that depends on how quickly the conference committee gets done.

I can hear it now, Ellis, West, and Dutton bragging about how they took on the mighty NRA in Texas and WON!

Makes me want to puke just thinking about it.