HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[joe817]

Homeland Security committee meeting is being streamed.

This should be a very interesting meeting. Not only are they going to mull over the glitch in HB 910, they are also going to discuss HB 805, HB 4061 and HB 2359

Explanation of what happened on the floor going on right now.

[Owens]

So...if I caught the tail end of that correctly, HB910 should be back on the floor by Friday (off to calenders....again)and HB937 should be OK too.

At least I think that was what I heard.

[joe817]

So...if I caught the tail end of that correctly, HB910 should be back on the floor by Friday (off to calenders....again)and HB937 should be OK too.

At least I think that was what I heard.

That's what I got out of it too.

[K5GU]

So...if I caught the tail end of that correctly, HB910 should be back on the floor by Friday (off to calenders....again)and HB937 should be OK too.

At least I think that was what I heard.

Yes, Phillips said they voted HB 910 out of committee again (in formal mtg.) and it's on the way to Calendars again, for possibly Friday. Who can tell? He also said there were 125 bills that were victims of the witness affirmation glitch.

[v7a]

Is it safe to assume that SB17 still not being referred to House committee is a deliberate act by Straus? Does he hope that the Senate won't have time to pass HB910 when it gets sent over by the House?

[viking1000]

I think it will be resolved and back on the floor Friday as they said . It is being talked about as a technical issue .

[joelamosobadiah]

Yeah, I immediately went conspiracy myself, but it truly sounds like a technical issue.

Now, a technical issue that may have been overlooked by a different, less controversial bill...... Yeah, that I wouldn't rule out.

[Locksmith]

I may be wrong.. but it appears to me like the language in HB910 was substituted with the language from SB17

[v7a]

I may be wrong.. but it appears to me like the language in HB910 was substituted with the language from SB17

I don't think that matters much. From what I understand not just the same language but also the same bill number must be voted on by both Senate and House in order for the bill to go directly to the Governor. If the House passes HB910 instead of SB17 (even if language is identical), it will need get sent over to the Senate and voted on again there (presumably after going through Senate committee first).

[J.R.@A&M]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/comp ... use/nktCk/

[Bladed]

I may be wrong.. but it appears to me like the language in HB910 was substituted with the language from SB17

I don't think that matters much. From what I understand not just the same language but also the same bill number must be voted on by both Senate and House in order for the bill to go directly to the Governor. If the House passes HB910 instead of SB17 (even if language is identical), it will need get sent over to the Senate and voted on again there (presumably after going through Senate committee first).

Correct.

[v7a]

I didn't catch the committee meeting that happened earlier: did they manually fix the witness record problem? Or did they by voting again essentially wipe the slate clean? (i.e. new report goes to floor with 0 witnesses, since presumably there were no witnesses testifying today due to the short notice).

[AJSully421]

I didn't catch the committee meeting that happened earlier: did they manually fix the witness record problem? Or did they by voting again essentially wipe the slate clean? (i.e. new report goes to floor with 0 witnesses, since presumably there were no witnesses testifying today due to the short notice).

I think this is the case. Like any mob action... zero witnesses.

[mojo84]

Delay...stall...stop

Martinez Fischer later said he was philosophically opposed to the open carry bill and was taking every opportunity possible to delay or stop it.

“This is not something I think my constituents want, and my job is to represent them by any means necessary,” he said. “If there’s a piece of legislation that I cannot support, if I can’t work with the author to make it better, I’ll find a way to make sure that my perspective is taken into account.”

Seems to me the way to properly show his thoughts is to vote "no", not try to kill the bill on a technicality.

That's the problem, people think the end justifies the means. If the majority of the members believe a bill should pass a floor vote, then it should pass. He is using Chicago thug politics.

Just like the tax code, the rules of he legislature are too complicated with too many loopholes.