TexasCHLforum.com

juno106 wrote:And, all the "doom and gloom" you are espousing would not have happened, if Huffines hadn't put forth his amendment?!

Really?!

Huffman's stripping of the Dutton amendment in Committee, prior to going to the full Senate, also would have forced... [insert quote of doom & gloom]

a concurrence vote at best, and possibly a conference committee which will eat up more time and possibly open the bill to a filibuster. Then there are the potential risks that Campus Carry faces now that the reported deal between the house and senate leadership to pass OC and CC is on shaky ground at best.

Lets ask the same question about Huffman, shall we?

was Huffines trying to kill OC, CC, or both?

Remember this ?!

Amend Floor Amendment No. 9 to CSHB 910 (Senate Committee Report version) by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION to the amendment and renumbering subsequent SECTIONS of the amendment accordingly:
Section ____. Section 46.02, Texas Penal Code is amended as follows:
(b) Except as provided by Subsection Subsections (c) and (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under Sections (a) and (a-1) is a felony of the second degree if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun.

Good points, however you forget, or fail to mention, that there supposedly was/is a deal between the house and senate leadership for the senate to pass HB910 minus the Dutton amendment in exchange for the house to pass SB11. Now both bills are in danger, I could give you an example of the logic our opponents will use to try and convince house reps to vote against concurrence but I won't just in case they have not thought of it. CJ Grisham is attacking the NRA and TSRA on facebook because they tried to kill the Huffines amendment in order to save the deal to pass both OC and CC, now we might get one or we might get both, or we might get neither but had the senate passed HB910 w/o Huffines amendment we would know for a fact we were getting both.

CJD wrote:Cross Posted from another thread:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

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.

Dutton Amendment:

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 whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

The underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.

The thing that gets me about all this is that it would take a moron to mess up copying and pasting the language from the Dutton Amendment into a new document. To see this degree of a change tells me the difference is intentional, and makes me wonder if Huffines effort was aimed at killing this bill or killing the deal to pass Campus Carry. Consider that he fought so hard to get the amendment added to the bill and intentionally produced a differently worded amendment that the debate was guaranteed to eat a lot of our very limited time to pass it. His amendment forces a concurrence vote at best, and possibly a conference committee which will eat up more time and possibly open the bill to a filibuster. Then there are the potential risks that Campus Carry faces now that the reported deal between the house and senate leadership to pass OC and CC is on shaky ground at best. So the real question in my opinion is was Huffines trying to kill OC, CC, or both?

Keep in mind that this has to be an intentional change in the language when the difference is that greate and remember that the author claimed it was identical to.

Xikar wrote:Had Huffines been the cause of HB 910 failing I would pray for his replacement next election cycle. Definitely not representing the vast majority of Texans that want it pasSED.

Depending on what the House does he could still have caused the bill to fail.

Dear Lord is that Rep. Stickland that I saw standing there watching this?

Papers are being passed around now, so I think they should resume pretty quick.

picking up where they left off.

In the end it doesn't matter why Huffines is doing this, but that he is doing it. If HB910 dies because he is pulling a "Stickland" then it falls on his head, even though he, his friends in OC*, and on the various social media platforms are too blame. This amendment would not have been controversial if OC* along with Stickland had not run their mouths about sneaking unlicensed carry past (which they didn't) and if CJ Grisham had not pulled his Oklahoma stunt. But thanks to Stickland, Grisham, and OC* this amendment is too controversial to pass without a major fight AND I am afraid their fight for it may kill this bill.

BTW, OC* is a stand in for OCT, OCTC, CATI, and all the OC organizations that put so much effort into derailing licensed OC but now claim to support it while their man in the Senate kills it.