TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:People who oppose HB4105 on subject matter grounds should be very careful trying to apply the equal protection clause. Doing so will open Pandora's Box.

Chas.

For the record, my own comment was neither yay or nay. I was just making a possible observation for what it was languishing.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mojo84 wrote:In actuality, I'm not sure if the republicans want it to come up either.

It is begging for a fight if they pass it. Maybe that isn't something they want to spend any political capital on passing.

mr1337 wrote:

C-dub wrote:Looks like they're working late tonight.

Good.

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.

I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)

Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.

Unfortunately, what he is pushing isn't going to work in my opinion. Rates and appraisals will be increased to offset the increased homestead exemption.

Maybe in missing something.

Regardless of actual net effect, Patrick's number one campaign pledge was a reduction in property tax. His number one priority in this session is to fulfill that pledge.

If it doesn't reduce the amount paid by the property owner, it is not fulfilling his pledge. That is playing a shell game and isn't what he promised.

That may be the case. I haven't studied that particular bill. My only point is that he is determined to satisfy his promise of property and business tax reduction.

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.

I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)

Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.

Unfortunately, what he is pushing isn't going to work in my opinion. Rates and appraisals will be increased to offset the increased homestead exemption.

Maybe in missing something.

Regardless of actual net effect, Patrick's number one campaign pledge was a reduction in property tax. His number one priority in this session is to fulfill that pledge.

TXBO wrote:

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.

I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)

Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.

Bladed wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

Bladed wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:Looks like because of campus carry attached to OC, we won't get OC. At this point I just wish they'd have left OC alone and maybe it would have went through. If campus carry and unrestricted carry were supported it they could have made it on their own.

I personally think that campus carry and unrestricted carry didn't have a chance for whatever reason since the beginning that's why the focus was on OC because it had a chance of passing, not because less effort was given to other things. No reason we should not have been able to get it all, but I digress.

So IMHO whoever attached campus carry to OC to end run the system just did as much damage to OC as OCT, all or nothing means we will likely end up with nothing. So if we want to lament over not having campus carry or unrestricted carry we can rejoice because looks like we won't have open carry either (and it was likely killed by campus carry, yeah!-sarcasm).

Nobody has attached campus carry to open carry. The current holdup of open carry has nothing to do with campus carry.

A-R wrote:


A deal between Texas House and Senate members has revived legislation that would allow concealed handguns to be carried into university classrooms, dorms and buildings.
After passing quickly through the Senate, legislation allowing “campus carry” has been bottled up for the past month in the House, raising questions about its viability with only three full weeks remaining in the legislative session.
Apparently out of options in the House, state Rep. Allen Fletcher, R-Cypress, turned to the Senate, where he said he worked out a deal to have campus carry legislation grafted onto another gun bill as an amendment. The move would allow the new combination bill to return to the House, where approval by the Republican majority is expected.
“If I can get the Senate to send it back over this way, we’ll wrap it up and call it a session,” Fletcher said Wednesday. “It’ll save a lot of time and effort and debate.”
The first step of the plan took place Wednesday evening when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick referred House Bill 910, allowing those with a concealed handgun license to openly carry a holstered firearm, to the Senate State Affairs Committee, where it must receive a public hearing and a vote before heading to the full Senate.
Fletcher’s campus carry legislation, House Bill 937, has been sitting without action for the past four weeks in the House Calendars Committee, which decides which legislation goes to the floor for a vote. Campus carry language will be added to HB 910 before it leaves the Senate, Fletcher said

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/de ... 263.735724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you sure? Then what does the hold up have to do with? First we hear, relax all is well, then we hear never mind. TSRA keeps sending emails about urgent action needed. If they got the votes, should be no problem making them happen.

Here are my suggestions:

Step 1: Learn the legislative process--there have been no hearings or floor votes on open carry since HB 910 passed out of the House, so there has been no opportunity to attach campus carry to open carry.

Step 2: Learn that correlation does not equal causation--the fact that the holdup on open carry became apparent at about the same time the media reported that legislators were considering attaching campus carry doesn't mean that the holdup is related to the amendment talks.

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Apparently, there is much we aren't being told. I suspect it comes down to egos and Straus playing king.

I know he has plenty of power but at least in theory, he should not be able to block HB910 from moving in the Senate. Some on here have questioned why political capital is needed if Republicans hold majorities. Maybe this is why, I guess he could hold other bills hostage if this one moves in the Senate.

I also said "egos". It's not just Straus. I think we have some middle age children running the show.

Yes, I saw that one and I didn't have any comment on that.

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Apparently, there is much we aren't being told. I suspect it comes down to egos and Straus playing king.

I know he has plenty of power but at least in theory, he should not be able to block HB910 from moving in the Senate. Some on here have questioned why political capital is needed if Republicans hold majorities. Maybe this is why, I guess he could hold other bills hostage if this one moves in the Senate.