TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I don't know if Stickland would amend HB195, or if he'll even get the opportunity. If it is really an OCT/NAGR bill as OCT claims, then they should be pushing for a committee substitute. Again, HB195 may never have the opportunity for a committee substitute.

Chas.
HI Charles, couple more questions.....

1. When a "pro" gun bill is written by another person/entity, and that bill is poorly crafted in some way (I'm thinking specifically of HB195's failure to adequately address 30.06 as an example, but this question is relevant to any such bill written by another entity which fails to address any possible consequences of the bill), does either NRA or TSRA involve itself in attempting to contact that entity through back-channels with suggestions for how the bill might be amended to have a greater chance for success (assuming it is truly pro-gun)?

2. OR.... in such a case, does NRA or TSRA just wash their hands of it and steer clear, making sure that all stakeholders in the process know and understand that it isn't NRA/TSRA's bill?

Just to be clear, I am asking about generalities, and I do understand why neither NRA nor TSRA would want their good names associated with a NAGR bill, particularly HB195, and I would agree with their doing so.

I have rewritten numerous bills originally written by others, when I am asked by a Senator or a Representative. If I'm contacted before a bill is filed, then my version is the as-filed version. Often my version is offered as a committee substitute.

Other "organizations" are not contacted about their bills, although some will contact us. I can't say more because some lying dirtbags will twist what I say.

Chas.

VMI77 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
mr1337 wrote:Any chance in an amendment in the bill to clarify this point, or are there any other unlicensed OC + unlicensed CC bills filed (or yet to be filed)?
At least one other licensed open-carry bill will be filed and possibly another unlicensed open-carry bill. The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC. Something else has been drafted as a lifeboat, but I can't say more. There's no reason to file a different unlicensed open-carry bill if there's no chance such a bill would pass.

I don't know if Stickland would amend HB195, or if he'll even get the opportunity. If it is really an OCT/NAGR bill as OCT claims, then they should be pushing for a committee substitute. Again, HB195 may never have the opportunity for a committee substitute.

Chas.
Different subject, but I got my American Rifleman today and didn't see your name on the ballot?

I was reelected last year for another 3 year term. Thanks for looking!

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, can you please explain the "committee substitute" process? I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means/entails.
If a bill is given a committee hearing, the author can lay out a substitute bill that will be debated. If/when a vote is taken on the bill in committee, it is the substitute that is voted. Any bill can also be amended in committee by a majority vote, without laying out a substitute, but that is done when committee members other than the author want the amendments.

Chas.
So basically, the original bill acts as a placeholder, which is discarded once the substitution occurs?

Correct. Usually, one does not file a bill with the intent to submit a committee substitute, however, sometimes it's a tactical move.

That is not the case here.

Another bit of trivia. If a committee substitute is presented at the opening of a committee hearing, it does not appear on the legislative website unless the bill is given a vote in committee. If no vote is ever taken, the public doesn't get to see the committee substitute that was debated. I wish it was otherwise because this often causes confusion.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC.
Does the bill contain verbiage that makes it clear that licensed OC is not in and of itself justification for stop by law enforcement?
No.

Chas.
After reading a few different posts on this subject, it seems that some feel that they will lose some of their 4th Amendment for a slight gain of 2nd Amendment. Is that the intent (which seems doubtful), or is it that those filing this bill don't believe enough CHLers will open carry to have to worry about it? Or something else entirely that I likely haven't thought of? There is so much stuff surrounding this topic that it gets a person's thoughts down a rabbit-hole rather quickly.

This is a very real concern and one that I share. Unfortunately, a recent stunt by someone we all all know has created an issue with the protective language I would like to see in an open-carry bill. The concern is that, even if it is known or suspected that a person does not or cannot have a CHL, then LEOs would be prohibited from inquiring, if the bill has the language we all would like to see.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC.
Does the bill contain verbiage that makes it clear that licensed OC is not in and of itself justification for stop by law enforcement?

No.

Chas.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, can you please explain the "committee substitute" process? I'm not sure I understand exactly what that means/entails.

If a bill is given a committee hearing, the author can lay out a substitute bill that will be debated. If/when a vote is taken on the bill in committee, it is the substitute that is voted. Any bill can also be amended in committee by a majority vote, without laying out a substitute, but that is done when committee members, other than the author, who want the amendments.

Chas.

mr1337 wrote:Any chance in an amendment in the bill to clarify this point, or are there any other unlicensed OC + unlicensed CC bills filed (or yet to be filed)?

At least one other licensed open-carry bill will be filed and possibly another unlicensed open-carry bill. The licensed open-carry bill will be fine and it will be supported by NRA, TSRA and TFC. Something else has been drafted as a lifeboat, but I can't say more. There's no reason to file a different unlicensed open-carry bill if there's no chance such a bill would pass.

I don't know if Stickland would amend HB195, or if he'll even get the opportunity. If it is really an OCT/NAGR bill as OCT claims, then they should be pushing for a committee substitute. Again, HB195 may never have the opportunity for a committee substitute.

Chas.

A new article on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; was published dealing with HB195.

Chas.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

Re: HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun

HB195: Unlicensed Carrying of a Handgun