TexasCHLforum.com

Flightmare wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:
#2> The Lt. Gov. could very easily call a special session that focuses on on gun bills, if he weren't worrying about non issues.

The TxLeg this year was a joke. Plain and simple.

Only the Governor may call a special session.

Correct. However, facts rarely get in the way when engaged in unfounded ranting.

Chas.

I started to respond to specific posts, but it's better to do so in a general post. I understand people's frustration about the number of gun bills that will be passed this session. I share that frustration, especially concerning HB560 that I have promoted for 10 years. I don't have a problem with people expressing their frustrations, as I plan to do after the session is over. However, if you care about passing as many bills as possible in the closing days of the session, then hold your complaints until after the session closes. There is a critical bill that still has a chance and that will help gun owners dramatically. The last thing we need is for pro-gun legislators to get the opinion that the 2A community is going to blast them regardless of what happens in the next few days. (I'm talking about SB349 that doesn't change Texas law but clarifies it so dishonest local officials can't abuse and avoid current Texas law.)

Some argue that we should get anything and everything we want when we want it, because we have a super majority. While that's true, not every Republican puts gun issues at the top of their agendas. Not all of their constituents place 2A issues at the top of their lists. The people they elect must/should address the issues their constituents want by filing and working bills on many different topics. Many conservative groups are making the same argument, "why didn't we get everything we wanted?"

Last session saw the expenditure of many years worth of political capital and good will passing campus-carry and open-carry in one session. It wasn't easy for us or for legislators since it put friend against friend, especially with campus-carry. We knew before the 2017 Texas legislative session began that this was not going to be a "gun session." We have passed a bill that will make it possible for many millions of Texans to be able to afford to get and renew an LTC. SB16 wasn't front-page news and it didn't have the sex appeal of open-carry or campus-carry, but it will impact far more people. If we can pass SB349 discussed above, then those two bills alone would make 2017 a successful session, albeit without the number of bills we've passed in prior sessions. (This is especially true in light of the number of anti-gun bills filed that we were able to kill.)

I have to admit that my responses to some posts were less than statesmanlike and for that I apologize. While I share your frustration at seeing good bills die without even a hearing, I am also frustrated at some of our Members who make it clear that they believe that the session would have been more successful, if we had taken a firebrand approach. (That has worked so well for people and organizations that have relied upon that approach this session and in past sessions.) In some ways, people get spoiled to success and expect even better things in each successive session. That's not the way it works. At the end of the day, it's still politics. Whether you feel that is a dirty word or not, that's the reality we face.

To those I offended, I again apologize. I also ask you to consider how your comments are interpreted not just by me, but others who have fought for gun owners for years. Attacking your champions, either directly or by implication, doesn't motivate us. It makes us want to say "to heck with it, let's go fishing."

Chas.

This is for folks who think there is a better, more efficient and successful, way to get pro-gun legislation passed. How would you do it? Don't give me generalities like "don't compromise," or "demand that all Republicans . . .," tell me precisely what steps will be successful at passing everything we want to pass. BTW, also list your experience and track record at passing legislation in Texas, so we can evaluate your opinions in light of your credentials.

Chas.

thechl wrote:but...but...we're still in session! No whining. Why can't we all just be friends?!? Kumbaya, and all that.

I don't care one whit about making friends or singing folk songs. I want to pass pro-gun legislation.

Chas.

In case some folks are unaware, THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE IS STILL IN SESSION!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you might hold off condemning the folks we still need to help get bills passed. If you can't, then do it elsewhere.

Chas.

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Absolutely not!!! There's much more at play here, including the ability of any member of the Calendars Committee to "tag" a bill and effectively kill it by delaying it for a period of time. There are five F-rated Democrats on Calendars.

Attacking friends for problems beyond their control is not helpful.

Chas.

Of course. Just trying to get some kind of a perception. Is it a simple matter of the Calendars Committee voting on whether or not to send a bill to the floor? I'm just speaking naively here, but is it a scenario, for example, where they decide which bills go to the floor, King and Hunter voted "aye" and the 5 F-rated Democrats outvoted them.... something like that? I would like to have a better understanding of the process by which a bill actually moves - or doesn't move - from Calendars to the floor. Obviously somebody did - or didn't - do something.

If the Bill were to come to a vote, then it would be on the Floor. The Calendars Committee makeup is A+ = 1, A = 8, A- = 1, F = 5. Any member can "tag" a bill meaning it won't be put to a vote. It's a control mechanism that should not exist.

Calendars should have to meet publicly including standard video. It is designed to be a private black hole and it is. That said, it often works in our favor.

Chas.

A tag is only good for 24-72 hours correct? So if it got to calendars, with theoretically enough time, then those 5 F rated members of the committee could only delay it 15 days, right? Then I would also hold those responsible for delays on voting it out of committee to calendars responsible as well, and from what I have read, that was Phil King.

Calendars does not meet every day, so even a tag was only for 24 - 72 hours, a single "tag" would last a week under a normal schedule. Also, you assume that each member can only tag a bill once.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Absolutely not!!! There's much more at play here, including the ability of any member of the Calendars Committee to "tag" a bill and effectively kill it by delaying it for a period of time. There are five F-rated Democrats on Calendars.

Attacking friends for problems beyond their control is not helpful.

Chas.

Of course. Just trying to get some kind of a perception. Is it a simple matter of the Calendars Committee voting on whether or not to send a bill to the floor? I'm just speaking naively here, but is it a scenario, for example, where they decide which bills go to the floor, King and Hunter voted "aye" and the 5 F-rated Democrats outvoted them.... something like that? I would like to have a better understanding of the process by which a bill actually moves - or doesn't move - from Calendars to the floor. Obviously somebody did - or didn't - do something.

If the Bill were to come to a vote, then it would be on the Floor. The Calendars Committee makeup is A+ = 1, A = 8, A- = 1, F = 5. Any member can "tag" a bill meaning it won't be put to a vote. It's a control mechanism that should not exist.

Calendars should have to meet publicly including standard video. It is designed to be a private black hole and it is. That said, it often works in our favor.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Absolutely not!!! There's much more at play here, including the ability of any member of the Calendars Committee to "tag" a bill and effectively kill it by delaying it for a period of time. There are five F-rated Democrats on Calendars.

Attacking friends for problems beyond their control is not helpful.

Chas.

Scott Farkus wrote:

ralewis wrote:My (likely unpopular) opinion is I wish the emphasis on unlicensed carry would just go away. The distraction caused by 'constitutional carry' this cycle and Open Carry last cycle haven't help much with the notion of lawful carry in increasingly more places. With the reduction in LTC fees (assuming it passes), and the requirement that to carry unlicensed is same as getting a license, it makes no sense to me to even pursue unlicensed carry. Just get a license....And to those who say you don't need a license for a constitutional right, 2 things. First, no consitutional rights are absolute and permits are required for 'free speech' activities at times and courts can take actions to constrain other rights. The 2nd Amendment says what the courts say it means -- that's an inevitable reality that absent some sort of revolution we're not going to escape.

We've had 20+ years of successful CHL/LTC (including Open Carry last cycle) without incident, and all we're succeeding in doing is create awareness which will result in more and more posted locations.

I've written my state Rep and Senator on behalf of the 3 license holders in my household requesting they not support.

I agree for the most part but respectfully request you reconsider that last sentence. For whatever reason, it seems that the "powers that be" (for lack of a better term) have decided to put most of the eggs in the constitutional carry basket this sesson. While I think CC is important, I and I suspect many others here don't think it should be our top priority right now - HB 560 should. But at this point, it seems to me that the train has left the station and if we don't get CC, not only are we going to have a very disappointing session, but we'll be dealing with CC again next session, and the session after that, etc. until it passes. And it will continue to suck all the air out of the room, just like OC did until it finally passed.

At this point, I say let's just get it done and maybe finally hopefully we can clear the deck for a HB560 next time.

Yes, HB560 most certainly should have been the flagship Bill!

Chas.

locke_n_load wrote:Committee substitute text for HB1911 released today.

I notice:
looks like a gunbuster bars unlicensed carry, and carry past that is a class C. Doesn't mention anything about sign requirements, hence I think this.
belt or shoulder holster changed to just "holster"

CSHB 1911 Final.pdf

Edited - I originally thought the bill added exemptions to 46.03 and 46.035 for license holders, that was my bad (it does not).

Where did you get the committee substitute? It's not on the legislative website yet.

Thanks,
Chas.