HB 910 Conference Committee

[sugar land dave]

I'm probably wrong but my best feeling to get it passed is that the conference committee cannot come to an agreement thus giving the House a second vote on it and hopefully it passes then. Cause if Senate gets to vote on it again I'm sure Ellis, West and others will do whatever they can to bust it out.

In the 35 years I've been a Second Amendment activist, I've never seen a gun bill go to conference where an agreement was not reached. (I've seen bills die because one body did not accept the conference committee report.) Therefore, I don't know what happens if that occurs. I was interested in the question yesterday as to whether the House could reconsider HB910 and concur with the Senate version, if the conference committee did not reach an agreement. I am troubled about the answer given.

The Guide to Texas Legislative Information quoted by PBR includes a phrase that I have always thought to be true though, as I noted, I've never been in a position to know firsthand. That phrase reads, " Failure of the conference committee to reach agreement kills the measure." I don't know if the House Rules prohibit reconsideration of a bill that has gone to conference and failed to achieve a resolution. The above-quoted phrase appears to support that theory. However, the phrase could also mean that if a conference committee fails to reach an agreement, the bill is essentially dead because there is no other avenue of resolution. I'm concerned at the lack of a statement in the narrative that the bill could be reconsidered by the body that failed to concur.

If there is a potential point-of-order in this situation, you can bet that Martinez-Fisher will assert it.

Chas.

I wondered that also. I wondered if someone could be so clever as to deliberately slip in a tactic which would kill the law by letting a judge in a court case declare that the legislature had violated their procedures. The alternative would be too awful, that the group all knew what they were doing, that their votes would have no real meaning, thus they could vote to please their support groups while knowing that a judge would strike it down. Call me old school, but the time-tested saying is that anything goes in love, war, and politics. "Misdirection" exists or the word would not exist.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Please tell me if I'm understand this correctly. I'm trying to tell some other people about it, and it's hard to do when you're not sure of what you're saying.

If the conference committee doesn't come to agreement, the bill dies. I think that's a given.

If/when the bill comes back out of conference with nothing changed, the House will vote on it again. Since they voted against concurrence the first time (that's what sent it to committee in the first place), many feel there's a slim chance they would change their minds and vote for the same bill they just voted against. Matter of opinion here. Some of those reps said they still support it, they just wanted to send it to committee first. Phillips seems to feel that it would pass if it went through a second time.

The real danger is in the Senate. If/when the bill comes out of the conference committee and anything IS changed (e.g. the amendment is removed), it will have to be passed in both the House and the Senate, where Ellis, West and others will filibuster it until it dies.

Do I understand it correctly?

Thanks.

If, and that's a big if, the House rules allow a 2nd confirmation vote on HB910 in the event the conference committee cannot reach an agreement, then I believe the House will concur with the Senate version and open-carry will pass. However, I feel the far greater danger is the prospect of the conference committee reaching an agreement striking the Huffines amendment in spite of the rules on conference committee authority and subjecting the conference committee report to a point-of-order by Martinez-Fisher in the House or Sen. Ellis in the Senate.

Neither the House Republicans nor Dan Patrick want open-carry to die; but they may be very disappointed.

Chas.

[PBR]

this was just posted on oct facebook page

HB910 is under attack because police state unions would like to ignore your 4th amendment rights. The issue has always been about the law enforcement lobby wanting to continue to stop and harass folks for not doing anything wrong. We would not be here today if we already had this law in place when a Police Officer did exactly what the Huffines/Dutton/Rinaldi amendment could have stopped two years ago. It prevents law enforcement from stopping people doing nothing wrong and protects them from civil lawsuits such as the one the officers in this video are currently facing.

We have seen success and history is just a distant memory but we have to remind ourselves of the danger that a few Police (most are decent) pose to folks who are not doing anything wrong. Police approaching someone doing nothing wrong is cause for alarm, especially when you are minding your own business and a stranger makes it his business to deprive you of liberty on a whim.

The amendment was not an anti-cop amendment; it was pro-constitution. However, we have asked the committee to strip the amendment to get the bill passed. We already have a record vote on who opposes liberty that we will use next election cycle.

but nothing new on Huffines page

[Charles L. Cotton]

this was just posted on oct facebook page

HB910 is under attack because police state unions would like to ignore your 4th amendment rights. The issue has always been about the law enforcement lobby wanting to continue to stop and harass folks for not doing anything wrong. We would not be here today if we already had this law in place when a Police Officer did exactly what the Huffines/Dutton/Rinaldi amendment could have stopped two years ago. It prevents law enforcement from stopping people doing nothing wrong and protects them from civil lawsuits such as the one the officers in this video are currently facing.

We have seen success and history is just a distant memory but we have to remind ourselves of the danger that a few Police (most are decent) pose to folks who are not doing anything wrong. Police approaching someone doing nothing wrong is cause for alarm, especially when you are minding your own business and a stranger makes it his business to deprive you of liberty on a whim.

The amendment was not an anti-cop amendment; it was pro-constitution. However, we have asked the committee to strip the amendment to get the bill passed. We already have a record vote on who opposes liberty that we will use next election cycle.

"We have asked the committee to strip the amendment to get the bill passed." Grisham, a/k/a OCT.

Now that a very interesting claim, since there is no committee as yet. Now he's trying to take credit for the passage of HB910 if it can be salvaged, when he/OCT and Huffines are the reason HB910 is in jeopardy.

Chas.

[PBR]

"We have asked the committee to strip the amendment to get the bill passed." Grisham, a/k/a OCT.

Now that a very interesting claim, since there is no committee as yet. Now he's trying to take credit for the passage of HB910 if it can be salvaged, when he/OCT and Huffines are the reason HB910 is in jeopardy.

Chas.

my thoughts exactly, trying to save face if it ends up failing, well we asked for it to be stripped. And take credit if it does pass, we asked for it to be stripped we saved hb910. Sure wish I could post on their page, lol

[safety1]

Please tell me if I'm understand this correctly. I'm trying to tell some other people about it, and it's hard to do when you're not sure of what you're saying.

If the conference committee doesn't come to agreement, the bill dies. I think that's a given.

If/when the bill comes back out of conference with nothing changed, the House will vote on it again. Since they voted against concurrence the first time (that's what sent it to committee in the first place), many feel there's a slim chance they would change their minds and vote for the same bill they just voted against. Matter of opinion here. Some of those reps said they still support it, they just wanted to send it to committee first. Phillips seems to feel that it would pass if it went through a second time.

The real danger is in the Senate. If/when the bill comes out of the conference committee and anything IS changed (e.g. the amendment is removed), it will have to be passed in both the House and the Senate, where Ellis, West and others will filibuster it until it dies.

Do I understand it correctly?



Thanks.

If, and that's a big if, the House rules allow a 2nd confirmation vote on HB910 in the event the conference committee cannot reach an agreement, then I believe the House will concur with the Senate version and open-carry will pass. However, I feel the far greater danger is the prospect of the conference committee reaching an agreement striking the Huffines amendment in spite of the rules on conference committee authority and subjecting the conference committee report to a point-of-order by Martinez-Fisher in the House or Sen. Ellis in the Senate.

Neither the House Republicans nor Dan Patrick want open-carry to die; but they may be very disappointed.

Chas.

Would the House have some form of "point or order" regarding that 2nd concur vote....if needed. Based on the fact that the Acting Speaker at the
time told them it could go up for another Re-concur vote? Just a thought

[PBR]

Would the House have some form of "point or order" regarding that 2nd concur vote....if needed. Based on the fact that the Acting Speaker at the
time told them it could go up for another Re-concur vote? Just a thought

I don't think so, cause they couldn't do it this time. I think concur vote is vote up or down only nothing else, no amendments or anything, but I'm not 100% sure. Plus I'm still not sure it could even go back for a 2nd concur vote, seems some say it can and some say it can't. Feel like this

[NotRPB]

@evanasmith 3 hours ago

#breaking @JoseforTexas tells me he will filibuster #opencarry bill https://t.co/sXEcSAmuHc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; … #txlege #ttevents

again, Charles is right

[v7a]

Charles, if removing the amendment entirely in conference exposes it to a point of order (as removing entirely may not be allowed), couldn't they just flip the meaning of the amendment by removing these two words?

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

So the amendment becomes:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES. A peace officer may make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Not that I like flipping the meaning, but at this point anything to save HB910...

[safety1]

Would the House have some form of "point or order" regarding that 2nd concur vote....if needed. Based on the fact that the Acting Speaker at the
time told them it could go up for another Re-concur vote? Just a thought

I don't think so, cause they couldn't do it this time. I think concur vote is vote up or down only nothing else, no amendments or anything, but I'm not 100% sure. Plus I'm still not sure it could even go back for a 2nd concur vote, seems some say it can and some say it can't. Feel like this

With all that is at stake for many, on both sides I'd think that ALL these questions would be asked now and all possible outcomes would be known
before hand. Can they ask the questions now so we can prepare before we run out of options?....If we haven't already. It almost seems like the agreement
between both chambers now would have to be sending it back...."as is". Not attempting this re-concur option......and the sooner the better.

[FormerTSgt]

wow - just went to look at oct facebook and they deleted a post I made and banned me from further posting -- don't remember the post word for word but was along the lines of blaming Huffines and Grisham being at fault for the bill probably being killed and that the amendment was a stupid amendment that was already covered in constitutional law. also said they need to write everyone an apology letter saying they are sorry for letting everyone down if it doesnt get hashed out in committee or passed -- had many jump all on me over there for blaming Huffines and Grisham, I wanted to reply more to them but cant now.

edited: they already talking about doing more in your face tatics and marches with rifles. i replied to them go ahead all your gonna do is make them take that right away with the crazy in your face stuff, that was like pouring gas on a fire they flamed up so quick saying thats the only reason it got this far

I had been arguing with them since last night, I had over half a dozen posts on there and actually got some people to agree with me. As of a few minutes ago they deleted all my posts (Jon Jononymous) and banned me from further posting.

[PBR]

I had been arguing with them since last night, I had over half a dozen posts on there and actually got some people to agree with me. As of a few minutes ago they deleted all my posts (Jon Jononymous) and banned me from further posting.

lol I was wondering who Jon was, yea they did mine quicker than yours. Of course don't think anyone agreed with me or at least posted agreeing. Did have a couple of likes, think one was by you. Oh well just shows that the truth hurts. Still no reply to my or your posts on Huffines page, but honestly think someone post for him cause seems he never replies to anything.

[safety1]

Would the House have some form of "point or order" regarding that 2nd concur vote....if needed. Based on the fact that the Acting Speaker at the
time told them it could go up for another Re-concur vote? Just a thought

I don't think so, cause they couldn't do it this time. I think concur vote is vote up or down only nothing else, no amendments or anything, but I'm not 100% sure. Plus I'm still not sure it could even go back for a 2nd concur vote, seems some say it can and some say it can't. Feel like this

With all that is at stake for many, on both sides I'd think that ALL these questions would be asked now and all possible outcomes would be known
before hand. Can they ask the questions now so we can prepare before we run out of options?....If we haven't already. It almost seems like the agreement
between both chambers now would have to be sending it back...."as is". Not attempting this re-concur option......and the sooner the better.

The "as is" I would hope could stand up. This also giving those that stood for LEOs an out...so to speak.

[FormerTSgt]

I had been arguing with them since last night, I had over half a dozen posts on there and actually got some people to agree with me. As of a few minutes ago they deleted all my posts (Jon Jononymous) and banned me from further posting.

lol I was wondering who Jon was, yea they did mine quicker than yours. Of course don't think anyone agreed with me or at least posted agreeing. Did have a couple of likes, think one was by you. Oh well just shows that the truth hurts. Still no reply to my or your posts on Huffines page, but honestly think someone post for him cause seems he never replies to anything.

What's laughable is right after deleting our posts OCT is now asking that the amendment be stripped. Go figure.

[chamberc]

Our good friend Kory is at it again, lead DMN story:

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... erty.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;