shootnfish wrote:I found this information about conference committees in the
Guide to Texas Legislative Information at http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... oncom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :
" A conference committee’s charge is limited to reconciling differences between the two chambers, and the committee, unless so directed, may not alter, amend, or omit text that is not in disagreement. Nor may the committee add text on any matter that is not in disagreement or that is not included in either version of the bill in question."
So what can the conference committee legitimately do, when there are not any substantive differences between the bills?
I'm assuming this means that the committee must choose between the Dutton amendment and the Huffines amendment.
I don't see how that is going to help any more than just concurring the Huffines amendment if this is the case.
I found it interesting that so many changed their votes between the Dutton amendment and the concurrence vote. The political backlash from LEO groups must have been immense.
With or without the amendment, police still cannot detain a person without RS, so I wish they would have just done what gets HB910 passed. If that means go without the amendment, we still have the court cases to back us up.
You're right, the backlash was immense. Also, if the rules are actually applied as written, then the committee could very well not reach an agreement. If this were to occur, then House Democrats could filibuster the 2nd concurrence vote, if such a vote is actually permissible under House Rules.
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.
Deferring to the wishes of law enforcement is the cause of many of California's anti-gun laws (which passed with LEO support after LEO were exempted from the laws, such as the "Safe Handgun Roster" and ban on >10rd magazines). I'm simply suggesting it's not a good idea for Texas Republicans to be so willing to defer to law enforcement.
I'm not a big fan of Dutton, but he said one thing very well, extremely well - The 4th amendment was not passed to protect the police, it was passed to protect the people.
I recieved this Facebook reply from Dennis Bonnen this morning. I should say that I've known Dennis personally since he first ran for the House. He took over the seat my father held for 6 terms.
Dennis Bonnen: Rick Harris and Jenni Goff, I make no apologies for working with and supporting our law enforcement in passing Open Carry legislation that not only protects our gun rights but also protects those men and women who selflessly put their lives on the line every day to ensure our safety. Rick Harris, you should know better than most that I did not reverse my vote on HB 910, so please do not mislead Texas citizens. A vote to send a bill to conference committee is not, and never has been, a vote against a bill. It is a regular part of the legislative process the provides one last opportunity to make sure we are passing an effective law that is in the best interest of all Texans.
My reply:Rick Harris: Dennis , the Dutton /Huffines Amendment would simply removed any gray area about stopping someone from being stopped by an overzealous LEO. You and I both know that probable cause trumps everything else . At that point any law enforcement officer can ask you anything. As for you changing your vote, you voted for 910 to send it to the Senate and when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference. At this late date will it even make it back to the two chambers ? If it dies in committee or Senator Ellis is given a chance to filibuster that is tantamount to killing it. Having said all that, I've been watching you live as Speaker Pro Tem, and for what it's worth I'm proud to say I knew you when ! I hope there's something working that you can't share to get 910 done !
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
Houston, Tx.
DPS Received - Jan. 26th
Received Pin# - Feb. 25th
IN HAND!!!!!! June 9th
I put together a page based on data from the unofficial house journal on the HB910 concurrence vote. I wanted a way to visualize who was voting and how, with particular focus on comparing the vote yesterday to the vote on Dutton's amendment in April. http://analogthinker.com/HB910%20MTC%20Votes.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You can place whatever value on this data that you want. I intend to use it when I complete my ratings of the members in both houses after this session.
Rick Harris wrote:I recieved this Facebook reply from Dennis Bonnen this morning. I should say that I've known Dennis personally since he first ran for the House. He took over the seat my father held for 6 terms.
Dennis Bonnen: Rick Harris and Jenni Goff, I make no apologies for working with and supporting our law enforcement in passing Open Carry legislation that not only protects our gun rights but also protects those men and women who selflessly put their lives on the line every day to ensure our safety. Rick Harris, you should know better than most that I did not reverse my vote on HB 910, so please do not mislead Texas citizens. A vote to send a bill to conference committee is not, and never has been, a vote against a bill. It is a regular part of the legislative process the provides one last opportunity to make sure we are passing an effective law that is in the best interest of all Texans.
My reply:Rick Harris: Dennis , the Dutton /Huffines Amendment would simply removed any gray area about stopping someone from being stopped by an overzealous LEO. You and I both know that probable cause trumps everything else . At that point any law enforcement officer can ask you anything. As for you changing your vote, you voted for 910 to send it to the Senate and when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference. At this late date will it even make it back to the two chambers ? If it dies in committee or Senator Ellis is given a chance to filibuster that is tantamount to killing it. Having said all that, I've been watching you live as Speaker Pro Tem, and for what it's worth I'm proud to say I knew you when ! I hope there's something working that you can't share to get 910 done !
Rick, thanks for posting this. But I think the record shows that Dennis voted No to Phillip's motion to concur. The Nay votes yesterday are what sent the bill to conference. Regarding the quote, "A vote to send a bill to conference committee is not, and never has been, a vote against a bill..". My thinking is that if there's only 1 amendment on a bill that causes a difference to be resolved in a conference, and with only 3 or 4 days left for the issue to bounce between the two houses, then that is synonymous with voting "against the bill".
Last edited by K5GU on Thu May 28, 2015 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Harris wrote:My reply:Rick Harris: Dennis , the Dutton /Huffines Amendment would simply removed any gray area about stopping someone from being stopped by an overzealous LEO. You and I both know that probable cause trumps everything else . At that point any law enforcement officer can ask you anything. As for you changing your vote, you voted for 910 to send it to the Senate and when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference. At this late date will it even make it back to the two chambers ? If it dies in committee or Senator Ellis is given a chance to filibuster that is tantamount to killing it. Having said all that, I've been watching you live as Speaker Pro Tem, and for what it's worth I'm proud to say I knew you when ! I hope there's something working that you can't share to get 910 done !
I have to completely agree with you Rick. From an outsiders viewpoint looking in, a vote yesterday to not concur with the senate amendment was essentially a vote to send HB910 to its death. Politicians can tout technicalities all day, it's what they are good at but I'm tired of beating around this bush. I could care less if the Huffines amendment stays or goes, but to vote not to concur when there is literally a three word difference from what the house already voted overwhelmingly to pass, is in my opinion a cop out to retain the maximum amount of votes as they can try to say they supported 2A rights and keep the law enforcement endorsement.
Rick Harris wrote:My reply:Rick Harris: Dennis , the Dutton /Huffines Amendment would simply removed any gray area about stopping someone from being stopped by an overzealous LEO. You and I both know that probable cause trumps everything else . At that point any law enforcement officer can ask you anything. As for you changing your vote, you voted for 910 to send it to the Senate and when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference. At this late date will it even make it back to the two chambers ? If it dies in committee or Senator Ellis is given a chance to filibuster that is tantamount to killing it. Having said all that, I've been watching you live as Speaker Pro Tem, and for what it's worth I'm proud to say I knew you when ! I hope there's something working that you can't share to get 910 done !
I have to completely agree with you Rick. From an outsiders viewpoint looking in, a vote yesterday to not concur with the senate amendment was essentially a vote to send HB910 to its death. Politicians can tout technicalities all day, it's what they are good at but I'm tired of beating around this bush. I could care less if the Huffines amendment stays or goes, but to vote not to concur when there is literally a three word difference from what the house already voted overwhelmingly to pass, is in my opinion a cop out to retain the maximum amount of votes as they can try to say they supported 2A rights and keep the law enforcement endorsement.
I agree. And I was confused about the quote, "...when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference...". Bonnen voted Nay to concur, not Nay to send it into conference.
How many more two year periods between sessions do we have before opportunity runs out. How many more sessions before Democrats "new voters" tactics overwhelm Texas Republicans and swing the state back their way at which point the communist tactic of disarmament will emerge for all to see? The NRA is not wrong when they point out these dangers to our community. In fact just listen, I think we can hear Bloomberg laughing from here.
DPS Received Forms- 1/18/11 Online Status - 1/27/11 My Mailbox - 2/12/11 NRA Life Member
K5GU wrote:I agree. And I was confused about the quote, "...when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference...". Bonnen voted Nay to concur, not Nay to send it into conference.
You're right about his vote, but the effect of voting nay to concur is to send the bill to conference. Another way you can read Rick's post is "you voted nay to concur which sent the bill to conference."
I hope that I am not speaking out of turn and I am not trying to inflame matters further. Our numbers may be small, but it was just a few people who organized the "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry during his presidential run. It is my personal belief that we should push to lower the NRA rating of every lawmaker who changed his vote on HB 910. I also think that we should arrange Swift boat style oppositions to them in their next election cycle.
K5GU wrote:I agree. And I was confused about the quote, "...when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference...". Bonnen voted Nay to concur, not Nay to send it into conference.
You're right about his vote, but the effect of voting nay to concur is to send the bill to conference. Another way you can read Rick's post is "you voted nay to concur which sent the bill to conference."
Exactly what I was trying to say. Bonnen did not vote nay to send it to conference, which is the same as saying he voted "yes" to send it to conference, eh?
NotRPB wrote:occurring now motion by Birdwell to not concur SB11 (re respecting private property)
Live feed http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Watson and ellis questioned, watson is satisfied
