TexasCHLforum.com

FormerTSgt wrote:

PBR wrote:

FormerTSgt wrote:
I had been arguing with them since last night, I had over half a dozen posts on there and actually got some people to agree with me. As of a few minutes ago they deleted all my posts (Jon Jononymous) and banned me from further posting.

lol I was wondering who Jon was, yea they did mine quicker than yours. Of course don't think anyone agreed with me or at least posted agreeing. Did have a couple of likes, think one was by you. Oh well just shows that the truth hurts. Still no reply to my or your posts on Huffines page, but honestly think someone post for him cause seems he never replies to anything.

What's laughable is right after deleting our posts OCT is now asking that the amendment be stripped. Go figure.

Tracker wrote:

well, I thought they were all about Rights, including the 1st

FormerTSgt wrote:
I had been arguing with them since last night, I had over half a dozen posts on there and actually got some people to agree with me. As of a few minutes ago they deleted all my posts (Jon Jononymous) and banned me from further posting.

safety1 wrote:
Would the House have some form of "point or order" regarding that 2nd concur vote....if needed. Based on the fact that the Acting Speaker at the
time told them it could go up for another Re-concur vote? Just a thought

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
"We have asked the committee to strip the amendment to get the bill passed." Grisham, a/k/a OCT.

Now that a very interesting claim, since there is no committee as yet. Now he's trying to take credit for the passage of HB910 if it can be salvaged, when he/OCT and Huffines are the reason HB910 is in jeopardy.

Chas.

HB910 is under attack because police state unions would like to ignore your 4th amendment rights. The issue has always been about the law enforcement lobby wanting to continue to stop and harass folks for not doing anything wrong. We would not be here today if we already had this law in place when a Police Officer did exactly what the Huffines/Dutton/Rinaldi amendment could have stopped two years ago. It prevents law enforcement from stopping people doing nothing wrong and protects them from civil lawsuits such as the one the officers in this video are currently facing.

We have seen success and history is just a distant memory but we have to remind ourselves of the danger that a few Police (most are decent) pose to folks who are not doing anything wrong. Police approaching someone doing nothing wrong is cause for alarm, especially when you are minding your own business and a stranger makes it his business to deprive you of liberty on a whim.

The amendment was not an anti-cop amendment; it was pro-constitution. However, we have asked the committee to strip the amendment to get the bill passed. We already have a record vote on who opposes liberty that we will use next election cycle.

safety1 wrote:"During a filibuster, a senator is limited to topics relevant to the bill being discussed and cannot eat, drink or use the restroom during the speech. The rules also prohibit sitting or leaning on a desk or chair under any circumstances when the senator has the floor and is speaking on the bill or resolution.

Filibusters end either when the senator voluntarily yields the floor or after three violations of the rules for decorum and debate. After the third violation, the Senate can vote on a point of order, which if sustained would force the senator to yield the floor, according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas website."

I found the answer!

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.

ELB wrote: Your plan kills the bill. See HarryCallahan's post above.

v7a wrote:Texas Open Carry Bill Stalls Again Due to Political Pressure

Chairman Phillips told Breitbart Texas that Wednesday’s vote was not a vote against the open carry bill, but simply that members want to take the time to explore other options on resolving the concerns of law enforcement.

“We are going to work hard to get this bill passed,” Phillips said in a phone interview. “There is still a strong commitment from those who voted yes in April.”

Phillips said that if the Senate does not appoint their conference members or if the conference cannot reach a timely resolution that would allow the Senate and the House to approve the conference report, the House can discharge the conference committee and bring the bill back for another concurrence vote.

“I feel certain we have to votes to pass it when it comes back,” Phillips stated.

ELB wrote:
Your plan kills the bill. See HarryCallahan's post above.