HB435 Volunteer Emergency Svces Carrying

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't have the full amendment, but it appears that the mental hospital language added in floor amendment 1 was from HB14. However, it also appears to allow the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. Attorneys with an LTC to carry everywhere a LEO can carry. Again, I cannot see the entire floor amendment and I can't find anything on the second floor amendment.

While the mental hospital provision should not be a problem in concept,it is not germane and someone in the House may well call a point-of-order. However, the provision allowing yet more select LTCs to carry everywhere is precisely why the House refused to concur with Senate changes to HB508 in 2013. This killed the bill. HB435 may suffer the same fate, as well it should.

Chas.

[ScottDLS]

Doesn't the federal government decide if they wish to authorize US Attorneys and AUSA's to carry or not? If they don't already authorize it, why a carve out for Texas? If they do, I could understand legalizing under state law. And the Attorney General of the United States? Really? Why not POTUS?

[RoyGBiv]

Watching the video, Huffman was talking only about reducing fees for LTC for those attorneys...
Reading SB 1807, Senate engrossed, it clearly adds Chapter 46 (46.02, 46.03 and 46.035) exemptions that Senator Huffman did not mention yesterday.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=SB1807

The second amendment was adding HB 14 regarding Psych hospitals by adding notice similar to 30.06 but referencing 552.002.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85 ... 00014E.htm

[Charles L. Cotton]

Doesn't the federal government decide if they wish to authorize US Attorneys and AUSA's to carry or not? If they don't already authorize it, why a carve out for Texas? If they do, I could understand legalizing under state law. And the Attorney General of the United States? Really? Why not POTUS?

To my knowledge, U.S. attorneys and assist U.S. attorneys are not federal law enforcement agents, so they cannot be authorized to carry firearms. (I may be wrong.) The AG added to the Bill is the Texas AG, not U.S. Attny. Gen.

Chas.

[TexasJohnBoy]

I don't have the full amendment, but it appears that the mental hospital language added in floor amendment 1 was from HB14. However, it also appears to allow the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. Attorneys with an LTC to carry everywhere a LEO can carry. Again, I cannot see the entire floor amendment and I can't find anything on the second floor amendment.

While the mental hospital provision should not be a problem in concept, it is not germane and someone in the House may well call a point-of-order. However, the provision allowing yet more select LTCs to carry everywhere is precisely why the House refused to concur with Senate changes to HB508 in 2013. This killed the bill. HB435 may suffer the same fate, as well it should.

Chas.

Could the House call for a conference to hash it out and still keep it alive, or would a point-of-order terminate the bill completely/immediately?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I don't have the full amendment, but it appears that the mental hospital language added in floor amendment 1 was from HB14. However, it also appears to allow the Attorney General, U.S. Attorney and assistant U.S. Attorneys with an LTC to carry everywhere a LEO can carry. Again, I cannot see the entire floor amendment and I can't find anything on the second floor amendment.

While the mental hospital provision should not be a problem in concept, it is not germane and someone in the House may well call a point-of-order. However, the provision allowing yet more select LTCs to carry everywhere is precisely why the House refused to concur with Senate changes to HB508 in 2013. This killed the bill. HB435 may suffer the same fate, as well it should.

Chas.

Could the House call for a conference to hash it out and still keep it alive, or would a point-of-order terminate the bill completely/immediately?

The House has three options. They can concur with the amendments meaning the Bill has passed and goes to the Governor. They can refuse to concur and request a conference committee to try to work out a compromise. If they do, then the Bill goes back to the House and Senate for an up or down vote. The third option is a point-of-order that will kill the Bill if it is sustained. There wouldn't be enough time to send it back to committee to fix it in both bodies.

Chas.

[bigtek]

Their true colors will shine through.

[TreyHouston]

any update on this? says on the site that it passed 3rd reading,
then: Senate passage as amended reported
then: Senate Amendments distributed

can anyone translate to english?

[Papa_Tiger]

You can now read the Senate amendments (Senate Amendments distributed).

It is in the House's hands now and they have the three options that Charles mentioned above.

[greyjack]

You can now read the Senate amendments (Senate Amendments distributed).

If I read that correctly, I can form a volunteer militia, and the members will be exempt from 30.06 all the time, but only exempt from 46.03 and 46.035 when the Homeland Security Advisory System threat level is not Green.

[RossA]

If I read that correctly, I can form a volunteer militia, and the members will be exempt from 30.06 all the time, but only exempt from 46.03 and 46.035 when the Homeland Security Advisory System threat level is not Green.

I'll join!

[SewTexas]

my guess, in the mood the house is in right now....they will not concur.

[parabelum]

My guess is that the House members know that the wrath of the electorate will be upon them if more pro 2A bills are not pushed through in this session. There are no excuses.

I know that personally, I've put pressure on as much as I could, and I know that the staff know darn well that we are watching this unfold carefully.

My supposition is that had we been silent, this bill would have been dead awhile back.

Many thanks to all members and staff who are listening to the will of the people. Do the right thing.

[SewTexas]

well, color me shocked, they concurred.