TexasCHLforum.com

baseballguy2001 wrote:There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Are you telling us that you would rather see the Bill die rather than take what we can get and if it turns into an issue then deal with it in future sessions?

Seems to me that when it finally comes to a vote it could end up very close

SB11 Just passed on 3rd reading...

edited because I am much too late on this breaking news...

sig-sog wrote:Does HB910 as approved last night allow cities with a population greater than 750K to enact ordinances preventing OC? Rumors are flying everywhere.

Not sure where the ability to Opt out comes from but there was nothing in the Bill that granted that ability. Think you should find a better place to get your rumors.....

" It might not be all the way there, but because of Senator Huffines, it's a lot closer that it was before his amendment."

Really? Seriously? If Huffine did not have his amendment the Bill would have passed hours before it did so saying that it is closer because of his amendment is being intellectually dishonest and misleading then again so was Huffine saying that he had support from an organization that opposed his Amendment.

His amendment had a very good chance of killing the Bill, fortunately it did not happen. He stated numerous times that his Amendment was the exact same as the House version, we now know it is not so back to the House it goes and hopefully gets a vote.....

Being a Monday morning quarterback is fine if it goes your way, had it blown up the Bill everybody would be looking to hang him, it comes down to risk versus reward and IMO it was not worth the risk..............