HB 910 Conference Committee

[NorthTexas]

Respectfully disagree.

By removing Dutton, it precluded any chance at going to directly to the Governor.

The Governor was pressured to veto open carry if it arrived at his desk with a Dutton/Huffines amendment. Would he actually veto it? I dunno, he is a strong supporter of 2A but also a strong supporter of law enforcement. Seemed a risky proposition.

By removing Dutton, it guaranteed going back to the House, for a concurrence vote.

That seems to me to be exactly what the House and Senate leadership wanted. Remember, right before open carry started moving in the Senate, Lt. Gov. Patrick announced some sort of agreement had been reached between himself and Straus. Based on Sen. Estes' comments at the outset of Senate debate on HB910, I suspect part of that agreement was for the Senate to send a clean bill back to the House, sans Dutton amendment, so they could concur. This would allow them to appease the LEOs who were unhappy, as well as avoid putting the Gov. in a position to have to choose sides re: whether to veto the bill. Huffines' amendment was the monkey wrench here, and I believe that is why the House then voted NOT to concur.

[arthurcw]

Yes, I suppose as a Monday morning quarterback, it is easy to now look back. But Huffman was Chair, and in a position of leadership. As Sen Ellis is famous for saying, [paraphrase] "I may not know much, but I know how to count [the votes]". I would expect as much from someone in a position of leadership. Huffman "should" have known better, or not accepted the responsibility of being Chair.

She was counting the votes. And she believed they WERE NOT THERE. It's her job to get the bill to the floor (or keep bad ones from it). She knew (or heavily suspected) that the same parade of horribles was going to be thrown up at a Dutton amended bill as was done in the house for a Huffines amended bill.

If it stayed a Dutton amendment in the senate, the votes you are counting for passage in the senate would have melted away like they did in the house. Dems and LEOs were already out and telling everyone that the bill needed to die. Texas is NOT the state to go toe-to-toe with LEOs.

The House HAD to pass the bill. It had no choice or OC was dead there. They counted on the Senate to fix it. They didn't. Now here we are. You can blame Huffman, but you fall into the trap that Huffines wants you to fall into. Blaming ANYONE else but the man who played poker and lost. He tried to bluff with 10 high and got spanked. Would have been a nice win to put on his campaign posters. But when you get beat with a 10 high, who remembers that? He SHOULD have played ball but the reward was too great and the risks (personal) too small.

CJ and Stickland SHOULD have kept their mouths shut.

Kory SHOULD have... Well... Not been Kory. There's a lot of SHOULD to shovel.

Our side better get its SHOULD together by '17.

[TVGuy]

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.

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

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.

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.

[NotRPB]

I just got back in the house from supper ... sort of lost where we are because
I know dutton/huffines dropped in cmttee, but lost as to where we are this minute as far as when house/Senate vote on cmttee report ... today? they are voting today on some Cmttee reports or tomorrow?

Guess I'm asking how long before eligible, or where do I look> (Ate too much to think straight)
Were votes in Full Floors done while I was away?
confused

HB910
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
H Senate appoints conferees-reported 05/28/2015
H Senate grants request for conf comm-reported 05/28/2015
S Conference committee report filed 05/28/2015

rather than in-fighting so we have to scroll through 80 pages to learn where we are, how about just updates for now and maybe people can argue in private messages? just asking.

[arthurcw]

I just got back in the house from supper ... sort of lost where we are because
I know dutton/huffines dropped in cmttee, but lost as to where we are this minute as far as when house/Senate vote on cmttee report ... today? they are voting today on some Cmttee reports or tomorrow?

Guess I'm asking how long before eligible, or where do I look> (Ate too much to think straight)
Were votes in Full Floors done while I was away?
confused

HB910
H Senate appoints conferees-reported 05/28/2015
H Senate grants request for conf comm-reported 05/28/2015
S Conference committee report filed 05/28/2015

In another thread, reporters are saying as early as Friday. But I still don't think we've seen the actual text so all is up in the air.

[NotRPB]

In another thread, reporters are saying as early as Friday. But I still don't think we've seen the actual text so all is up in the air.

Thank you

[Callaway]

Conference Committee Report distributed at 7:21pm

Is there a way to see the actual report?

[Charles L. Cotton]

If HB910 dies, it will be solely on the shoulders of Huffines. Yes, more House Republicans could have voted to concur, but then there's the possibility of a veto. Nothing in politics is a guarantee, so you play the odds and try to stack the deck in your favor. Taking a "damnn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude usually gets your political ship sunk.
Chas.

Charles, thanks for being clear and comprehensive as usual. A lot of us use this forum just to kill time while waiting for your next post....

I'm still a little fuzzy about something, though. It's been repeated and repeated, including in both chambers, that recent constitutional law (from the Ohio cases) precludes unwarranted stops, and thus the amendments are redundant and unnecessary, if not downright irrelevant. Because of these recent decisions, an LEO can't detain you without RS, with or without the amendments. Are these hysterical LEOs simply unaware of this? If Abbott's veto is/was a possibility, does that mean he's unaware of it, too, or does it mean the recent decisions don't carry as much weight as we thought they did?

I am not in the camp that feels the constitutional issue is fully settled in the 5th Circuit. The 4th and 6th Circuit cases are on point and I believe the 5th Circuit will follow suit, but it has not yet been given the opportunity. My position on the amendments is that they are ineffective in the real world because of the ease with which reasonable suspicion can be established. If I were a LEO, I would welcome the language to avoid being put into a position that could get me sued or to lose an important criminal case. A MWAG call is a good example of potential civil liability, depending upon how the officer responds.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Didn't we just celebrate the passing of SB273? Isn't that a bill that merely reiterates current Texas law, but then adds a penalty because municipalities are ignoring that law with impunity?

Not really. There has never been a prohibition on governmental entities posting 30.06 signs; they were simply unenforceable. Now it is unlawful to do so.

Chas.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Conference Committee Report distributed at 7:21pm

Is there a way to see the actual report?

I've hit refresh about 57 times. Not up there yet...

[Charles L. Cotton]

The blame belongs on Huffines, not Huffman. After HB910 passed the House with the Dutton amendment, the LEO pressure was tremendous. They were/are putting pressure on the Governor to veto it, if the amendment remained/remains. I personally don't think Gov. Abbott would have vetoed the Bill, but it was and is a possibility. The greater threat was what we ultimately saw happen on the Senate floor when Huffines offered his amendment. After offering his unlicensed-carry amendment, then withdrawing it in the interest of time and the Senate's calendar, he then proceeded to offer the amendment in question. This took up several hours on the Senate floor putting numerous other bills in jeopardy. I have not been told this, but based upon my 35 years of experience, I know pressure was mounting to pull HB910 down until later so that other bills could pass. This is precisely why the Dutton amendment to HB910 was stripped in committee. Huffines was told that his amendment could kill open-carry, but he didn't care. Again, this man has already announced that he's running for Congress and name recognition is what he wants.

You are correct in that, had the bill come out of committee without amendment, then there would have been no conflict. However, it's passage and surviving a veto were by no means a certainty, in light of the massive law enforcement opposition to the Dutton amendment. Some would candidly tell you that it wasn't even a probability. When passing emotionally-charged bills, experienced people do everything they can to lay the groundwork for passage and that requires removing hurdles to the extent you can. Experience and a statesmanlike approach counsels one not to create politically dangerous and/or embarrassing situations for the very people you want to vote for your bill. Experience also teaches you not to set up a bully pulpit for your opposition, especially when a do-nothing amendment is at issue. Huffines admitted on the Senate floor that you don't have to add much to the mix to meet the "reasonable suspicion" standard. He wanted something with his name on it to use in his congressional campaign. As others have mentioned, changing the language from the Dutton amendment was no accident; cut and paste is quite easy. The sad fact is he didn't want the Dutton Amendment restored, he wanted the Huffines Amendment created so he could ride it to Washington.

If HB910 dies, it will be solely on the shoulders of Huffines. Yes, more House Republicans could have voted to concur, but then there's the possibility of a veto. Nothing in politics is a guarantee, so you play the odds and try to stack the deck in your favor. Taking a "damnn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude usually gets your political ship sunk.

Chas.

I'm new to watching the legislature in detail, I may wish I never started.

Oh, I know exactly how you feel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chas.

[mojo84]

Has this session been one of the more tumultuous as far as pro 2nd Amendment goes?

[Charles L. Cotton]

You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.

Did you read my detailed response when you tried to blame Huffman earlier? If so, then you know the answer. If not, please read it.

You also make the assumption that HB910 would have had the votes to be reported out of the Senate State Affairs Committee with the Dutton Amendment in tact.

Chas.

[jamminbutter]

Conference committee report is posted... http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/84cc ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thechl]

Didn't we just celebrate the passing of SB273? Isn't that a bill that merely reiterates current Texas law, but then adds a penalty because municipalities are ignoring that law with impunity?

Not really. There has never been a prohibition on governmental entities posting 30.06 signs; they were simply unenforceable. Now it is unlawful to do so.

Chas.

This site has been an enormously educational resource that I have enjoyed over the last three legislative sessions. Thank you, not only for the website, but also for the insight you freely share.

And thank you to all the members here who also share their knowledge, wit and frustration, usually with decorum.