TexasCHLforum.com

hirundo82 wrote:Then it's dead. From the Dates of Interest:

Ding, dong...

hirundo82 wrote:Yeah, I was just noticing that this morning. That's the Aliseda amendment that was passed in committee 5/16; we don't know what the amendment was when they reconsidered it in committee 5/19.

Anyway, it may be a moot point as any local and consent Senate bill not passed today is dead, and SB905 isn't on the calendar.

Certainly no sign of activity on it here.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paragrouper wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:OK, so the version of SB905 from the second committee meeting (at least I think it is from the second meeting) is up, and it includes legislators and statewide elected officials like in the engrossed Senate version. I guess the legislators really want their special treatment.

SB905 has also been recommended for the Local and Uncontested Calendar. Am I correct in my recollection that that precludes attempts to amend the bill on the House floor?

I read through the House Committee Report and page three contains this amendment

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT NO. 1
SECTION ____. Amend S.B. 905 (Engrossed) with the following:
(1)On page 1 line 18 insert "or" after ";".
(2)On page 1 line 20 strike ";"after "States attorney" and replace it with "."
(3)Strike Page 1 line 21 through page 2 line 11.
Aliseda

This amendment removes elected officials and noncommissioned DPS employees. I don't see a second committee report. Am I looking in the wrong place?

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB905

Don't think so; I think it's now waiting its turn in Calendars for a vote on the House floor. Because the Senate's original bill was amended, assuming it passes the House, it'll have to go back to the Senate... right?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

Yes, but can't House representatives offer amendments to a Senate bill once it passes the Senate and comes to the House?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:When SB905 comes to the House Floor, Rep. Kleinschmidt plans to offer an amendment that extends it provisions from just elected officials to all CHL's who are on their 3rd or later renewals. Some will ask why the amendment will not cover all CHLs, but I can't go into that now. It's going to be hard enough to fight off a point-of-order.

Please call your Representative and ask him/her to support any amendment to SB905 that is offered by Rep. Kleinschmidt and to oppose any amendments to the Kleinschmidt amendment that are not acceptable to the author (Kleinschmidt).

Thanks,
Chas.

House Members

Phew! I'm so glad there is some bending going on on this issue. Charles, would the wording include any love (address...) for those who *had* a CHL, didn't renew, and then signed up for another one? In other words, I got my CHL right when they became available in 1995. Drew the short straw, and got a two-year application. I worked full time @ Univ of Houston, and could never freakin' carry; so let my CHL lapse. Clean record - no suspensions, etc. Got a new CHL in 2009. So how would this be addressed by the prospective wording in the bill?

I will send a thank you to Rep Kleinschmidt, and contact my own Rep.

Edit: The staffer in Rep Kleinschmidt's office hasn't even heard about this planned amendment yet! I asked her to pass along a thank-you, and the same question about non-contiguous blocks of CHL possession.