7GenTex wrote:HB 910 now goes to committee and they are going to conference over the amendment.
However, if the amendment is withdrawn by Huffines, I believe the bill can be brought back for a vote without the conference reaching a conclusion? Or would that require both houses to vote on it again?
(edited a bit after reading the above post)
Can I quote myself?
Well, I just did!
Supposedly:
Because the amendment was added to and voted on in the House, it has become part of the law and Huffines cannot simply drop it. It MUST go back to a committee.
I'm sick right now. Watched the vote and couldn't post until now, or risk violating forum rules.
OCT, Huffines, Grisham, and Stickland have cost us everything in this cycle. I'm not going to try and guess their motivations, there are too many variables there. Kory Watkins too.
Charles, thank you for your hard work over the last two years, sorry things went down this way. I hope to hear a full report of your opinions next week or soon thereafter.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thank you CJ Grisham/OCT and Sen. Huffines for setting up HB910 to be filibustered. The amendment provided no protection in the real world and it may well have killed open-carry.
People can argue pro and con on the merits of the amendment until the Second Coming, but the fact is it may have killed the bill.
Chas.
Respectfully Chas,
Huffines deserves SOME blame, but we would be just fine if this bill (or SB17) had been promptly assigned to committee after initially passing the house/senate instead of playing a game of chicken for weeks to see who blinks first.
Edited to fix typo
No, he deserves all of the blame because it was his amendment that is quite possible going to kill HB910. Yes, the Bill was not referred to a committee until 46 days after it arrived in the House and that's on the Speaker's shoulders. But in spite of that fact, HB910 would have passed today because the House would easily concurred with the stripping of the Dutton amendment. Huffines, Grisham & OCT are going to be responsible for HB910's defeat, if it comes to that.
Overthehill wrote:Just emailed my Representative to thank him for his vote. He voted to concur. Stood firm throughout. Will be working hard for him next election.
Good. They should get feedback from us even when we fall short. Let them know that you watched.
DPS Received Forms- 1/18/11 Online Status - 1/27/11 My Mailbox - 2/12/11 NRA Life Member
"I’m not willing to give up my liberty in order for the police to go catch some criminal," said Dutton, who unsuccessfully proposed the amendment when the bill first came up in the House. He gave a fiery speech on Wednesday in favor of keeping the language, which had been added in the Senate by Republican Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas.
They're pretending the House had to reject the bill because the naughty Senate added something nasty to it.
Both SB11 and HB910 are not dead yet and I for one will keep hope until the last bell tolls. The legislative process is always a bit manic by it's nature, so don't let the drama make you feel like you should give up.
hovercat wrote:Also respectfully, what killed the bill was those who voted against it. Nothing else.
They didn't vote against the bill, they voted against the Huffines amendment that was a poison pill amendment. Huffines was told what his attempt to add his amendment was going to set up, but of course he ignored it. And all the while, Grisham was cheering him on. Watch both of them try to lay the blame on others, including long-time pro-gun House Members.
joe817 wrote:Just got back home. Have read the thread. Stickland(no r) is up. Is he trying to keep the bill alive?
@RepStickland & Simpson double teamed the chair&parlimentarian? #parliamentaryinquiry
I'm no lawyer
but what Parlimentarian read sounds like Cmttee is limited to language passed by Senate OR House (so Dutton OR Huffines) but can't add nor delete text ?
@RepStickland asserts they have a choice of grammar then, between Huffines or Dutton's 4 word difference is the limit of committee action
I'm not sure if an amendment could be "removed" by Huffines since it was voted ...
I'm officially lost in "Rules" now
They can add or delete as they wish. This is what killed HB508 last session when the House refused to approve the conference committee report.
ws03 wrote:Both SB11 and HB910 are not dead yet and I for one will keep hope until the last bell tolls. The legislative process is always a bit manic by it's nature, so don't let the drama make you feel like you should give up.
But they voted for the Dutton Amendment. Huffines was the same as the one they approved. So maybe they never meant for it to pass in the first place as they possessed no logical reason to change their vote. Just how it appears from here.
Overthehill wrote:Thank you Senator Huffman for stripping the House Amendment and starting us on the road to failure. Pass it as the House originally sent it and voila it is done. Send it back without the Dutton Amendment and we are in the same place. Headed to conference committee. At least the Dems stand up and fight to the end, unlike some of the Republicans we just saw bail in the face of possible bad liberal press coverage.
What if she knew the votes to bring HB910 up for debate on the Senate Floor weren't there, if the Bill came out of committee with the Dutton amendment still in it?
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thank you CJ Grisham/OCT and Sen. Huffines for setting up HB910 to be filibustered. The amendment provided no protection in the real world and it may well have killed open-carry. People can argue pro and con on the merits of the amendment until the Second Coming, but the fact is it may have killed the bill.
To those who care only about making a point, rather than a difference, I hope you're happy. Mount your high horse, pontificate for hours, but make sure you keep your handgun concealed while you do so. This is what happens when people who don't know what they are doing try to get involved in legislation that carries with it a high degree of emotion.
Chas.
Charles,
How many times do they have to throw us under the bus? I seriously begin to question what if anything they bring to our party except grief, poor public relations, resentment from most of our political friends, and an unwillingness to take a 90 % win when it is there to be had.
When I hear their statements and observe their tactics it's apparent to be that they are driven by their own egos. Not only must they win, but it must be won their way so they can prove their importance. They drive division into a house that should be united, then blame others and make threats when the opposition exploits the division's they've created.
v7a wrote:Presumably Republicans will be passing universal background checks next session. Because not to do so would be a slap in the face of law enforcement.
Now that's really helpful. Sincerely, thank you so much.
This is what happens when people who don't know what they are doing try to get involved in legislation that carries with it a high degree of emotion.