TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dru wrote:I.....I can't believe this has happened. Charles, is it true? Like, really really true? Someone pinch me. Our legislature actually accomplished a pro-gun bill that had real, substantive change in it

It's true.

Chas.

Thank you sir.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

viking1000 wrote:Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .

Yes, but I can't get into how it can be done. There is a procedure.

Chas.

That's the best news I've heard all day!

ATX117 wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

ATX117 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
      
      It was removed in the senate to facilitate passage.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

He did not put it back in. If he did, this would not be playing out this way. He put back his version, with some very minor changes. Those minor changes were all it took to invoke a different path for the bill. The changes made it not EXACTLY equal to what came over from the house.

True, but my focus was on the intent. A few small changes in wording shouldn't have been an issue for the Republicans that bailed on it. For all practical purposes it was the same bill. And as far as the different path, that was started by Sen. Huffman when she stripped the Dutton amendment out. I'm not supporting Huffines here, I just want to see blame placed where it belongs.

It was removed to facilitate passage in the senate.

ScooterSissy wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

From the news. It has been reported that up to 75 % of the arrests did not have any prior criminal history. Additionally I have also seen a video interview where in it a member of one of the biker clubs (gangs) claims that he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL. I say claimed, because that is protect information and it won't be released. Whether it is true or not, it is the card law enforcement played to strike down HB 910. You've got to see that! In the house debate they did everything but spell it our for you by using key word after key word. Safety, tool box, hand cuff, protect ect...

I hold out hope that HB 910 makes passage. If not, then the entire session has been a loss. I pray that for this reason alone Gov. Abbott will call a special session to address, among other things not done, Open Carry, Campus Carry and HB 308!

Scott Farkus wrote:

PBR wrote: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.

That's how I'm seeing it also. Unless this gets to the Senate in the next 24 hours or so, I can't see how we avoid an Ellis filibuster. But I don't know all the rules that apply to that.

Also, what exactly is the conference committee going to "iron out"? There are basically 3 or 4 words with of difference that don't change a thing. If we're working under the assumption that the House will pass it without the Huffines amendment, you can't avoid sending it back to the Senate. If we're working under the assumption that the House will pass it as is if given a second chance, then what is different in two days that their minds?

What they can do is posted above. Essentially it is to iron out the amendment number 9 by modifying it or removing it entirely. To think the house will change their collective mind and vote yes if the same bill is sent back might be a bit risky.

Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

It would not surprise me if the Huffines' amendment was purposely reworded as the poison pill. Why? Waco and time. The bill stalled in the Senate giving the opposition time to rally. Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders. Not so good. Enter Senate committee by properly removing the Dutton amendment. It may have been palatable before Waco, but NOT after. Now were back to the house and Mr. Huffines is at the mic. A greater puppet for killing Open Carry there isn't. He was completely out classed and made a fool all while the devil whispering to his ear. I believe whom ever wrote that amendment did so with an express intent to derail HB 910. Think of it this way and ask yourself, can you copy and paste with a computer? Do you think he or his aides can? I bet they do thousands of times daily. He expressly said that his amendment was identical to that of the House version and it wasn't. End of story. End of Open Carry.

PBR wrote: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.

I have thought the same idea at times. A dangerous tactic I think. I'd prefer for each body to actually grow up, speak their mind and allow a vote. I may be old school, but they might try this novel idea and actually work at their job. Now I know filibusters are a legal and proper part of their job, but when all of the other antics this session are factored in I think they've had their time, it's money time and that's only earned with a vote. It is the single most important indicator a voter has as to where those whom represent them actually stand on an issue and if the democrats opt to filibuster, well that's the cowards way out in my opinion.

clerk ring the bell, this is a record vote!

steveincowtown wrote:Who chose the conferees for the House and why in the world would Nevarez be part of it?

Here: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conference Committee
If a conference committee is requested, the presiding officers each appoint five members
from their respective chambers to serve on the committee. The senate rules require that at
least two of the senate conferees be members of the senate committee from which the bill
was reported. 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. The committee also may not add text on any matter that is
not in disagreement or that is not included in either version of the bill in question. After the
committee has reached an agreement, a report is prepared for submittal to the house and
senate. The report must be approved by at least three conferees from each chamber and must
contain the text of the bill as approved by the conference committee, a side-by-side analysis
comparing the text of the compromise bill to both the house and the senate versions, and
the signatures of those members of the conference committee who approved the report. A
conference committee report is not subject to amendment by the house or senate but must
be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
Should the proposed compromise remain unacceptable to either chamber, it may be
returned to the same conference committee for further deliberation, with or without specific
instructions, or the appointment of a new conference committee may be requested. Failure of
the conference committee to reach agreement kills the measure. If the conference committee
report is acceptable to both chambers, the bill is enrolled, signed by both presiding officers in
the presence of their respective chambers, and sent to the governor.

If I understand the stated purpose of the committee, it is to change and/or omit amendment 9, because unless otherwise instructed, that is the only difference between the two bills.