TexasCHLforum.com

Xikar wrote:I'm a little surprised that nobody here seems to know what is going on.

Does the House have to vote again, or is it just a "motion to concur"... and what is the difference? What does a house do in a "motion to concur"?

I'm not a expert....but I believe that it will be a "motion to concur" made on the house floor by the author of the bill, up or down vote. yay or nay only!
You got to remember not everybody has been following this process as much as others.

Could the house simply not act?
In your opinion do you feel the House will rise against this bill, even though they already added the amendment before?
I know it's speculation, I'd be leaning towards they concur along the same lines as they did before sending it to the Senate. JMHO

K5GU wrote:

Xikar wrote:You a ham radio operator?

And do you "know something" about the House voting? Is HB910 being voted on today?

I'm not a legislative process expert by any means, but I'm guessing that when the appropriate staff members come back to work on Tuesday and get all the necessary documents printed and distributed as required by rule, we'll see some action on HB910, perhaps mid-week? According to the published dates http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/dates/dates% ... terest.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; they have until Thursday/Friday to get it done. The House doesn't need to vote on the bill again, but since it originated in the House and has an amendment by the Senate, the House will need to move on concurrence of the amendment (motion to concur), then when the motion is adopted, it can be signed by the House and sent to the Governor. That's all I know right now. Someone please correct me on anything that might be in question. At this point in time, I don't know of anything "we" (or law enforcement) can do to change their actions.

I don't know the process, so I will go with your opinion of how things will play out.
1 . It is possible the House does nothing the bill will die. (I don't think that will happen) but it is possible.
2. The Gov. could still veto it. He said he would sign any bill that hit his desk concerning OC. So for now we will take his word for it.
3. He could not sign it, which I think it would still become law without his signature after 10 days, if not vetoed before that time. (Possible if he is displeased with the Dutton amend)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:If this doesn't pass into law, Bloomberg, et al., are going to laugh so loud that you'll be able to hear them on the other side of the planet. And they are going to buy media time crowing and saying how they won, etc., and how much influence they have even in a Republican dominated state. I'm so irritated right now!

This is absolutely true! If it dies, it will be because of Huffines, not MDA, but they'll certainly take credit.

Chas.

Charles, What if anything can we do at this point in time to help the cause?

K.Mooneyham wrote:If this doesn't pass into law, Bloomberg, et al., are going to laugh so loud that you'll be able to hear them on the other side of the planet. And they are going to buy media time crowing and saying how they won, etc., and how much influence they have even in a Republican dominated state. I'm so irritated right now!

I agree, i hope the term "consensual stop" saves us from total failure

I have family in law enforcement, i have worked closely with law enforcement for almost 18 years.
i respect their view but not all law enforcement is against it. I 100% clearly understand why many
oppose it. Some of the biggest law enforcement agencies in the state opposed the bill with or without
yet they proceeded with the bill. I'm just confused and worried we will loose all that has been put into
this, and we all know who is to blame Dutton/Huffines. Pointing fingers at them won't expand our 2A
rights.....and there is a real chance this could kill OC in Texas permanently. Major kick to the gut of all
law abiding gun owners supportive of OC. I also think there will always be a Dutton/Huffines in the wings

I'm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Seems to me that if the Governor supported OC a month ago after the House passed 910, there's no reason for him to not support the version that passed the Senate last night.

It only differs by a clerical error.

I agree, it has been said that this amendment would have little affect and was all grandstanding.
The Gov. supported it coming out of the House with a VERY similar amendment.
Why the uproar now and now rumors the Gov will veto it??
I'm not point fingers at anyone....I'm confused as many of us are.
I understand the bill was suppose to come out of the senate "clean"
But those that striped the amendment in commitee knew the votes were there to get it back.
I understand there is workings and agrrements behind closed doors we dont know about.
With that said, it now feels like the "good guys" would like to see the bill die.
Again, Im not pointing fingers at ANYONE, I'm making and observation that I'm sure many are feeling the same
Ready for the tongue lashing that I'm sure is coming.

You make gross assumptions and look for conspiracies.

You assume that Gov. Abbott supported HB910 with the Dutton Amendment that came unexpectedly. You ignore the massive law enforcement response to the Amendment and the respect that LEOs have with elected officials. Law enforcement opposed open-carry and the Legislature passed it anyway, but adding the Dutton Amendment is viewed as a slap in the face. Real world impact or not, it is viewed as distrust of law enforcement and that doesn't go over well conservatives who are the strongest supporters of gun rights. You also assume that the Dutton Amendment and the support of Sen. West and Ellis were solely to protect citizens and not part of a broader plan.

Chas.

Charles, I don't believe I'm looking for conspiracies, just answeres as many of us are. My assumptions
are just based off what I have seen circulating on the board, and maybe they are based on false premise.
we dont have inside knowledge so we are left to speculate. Maybe that is poor judgment on my part.
you are right, it would be presumptuous to assume the Gov. supported HB910 with the Dutton admen.
I'm not ignoring law enforcements response to the amend. I respect it and was under the impression that the impacts
of the amend would not be significant, largely due to the fact you had stated it was pointless and just grandstanding.
Referencing current case law etc in the 5th circuit. I thought a recent ruling made this amend pointless.
however, i joined the push to request for it to be pulled down. I did this based on your request, for the health
of the bill. I don't trust Ellis or West as far as I could throw them. They may have a broader plan, Im sure they do
I don't support it, whatever it may be. If the real world impact is insignificant, which I think we view that it
may be....is it worth loosing the bill at this stage of the game? As i always have on this forum, I graciously
thank you for your hard work and dedication.

RoyGBiv wrote:Seems to me that if the Governor supported OC a month ago after the House passed 910, there's no reason for him to not support the version that passed the Senate last night.

It only differs by a clerical error.

I agree, it has been said that this amendment would have little affect and was all grandstanding.
The Gov. supported it coming out of the House with a VERY similar amendment.
Why the uproar now and now rumors the Gov will veto it??
I'm not point fingers at anyone....I'm confused as many of us are.
I understand the bill was suppose to come out of the senate "clean"
But those that striped the amendment in commitee knew the votes were there to get it back.
I understand there is workings and agrrements behind closed doors we dont know about.
With that said, it now feels like the "good guys" would like to see the bill die.
Again, Im not pointing fingers at ANYONE, I'm making and observation that I'm sure many are feeling the same
Ready for the tongue lashing that I'm sure is coming.

Robert91RS wrote:

safety1 wrote:We need an organized effort or a CTA, who cares about metal detectors or the Capital building for that matter.
WE NEED THIS BILL PASSED.....HELP!!!

What are our options? How do we get Huffines to withdraw his amendment?

Call. email, tweet Sen. huffines....go to facebook. Spread the word.....ask them to do the same!

We need an organized effort or a CTA, who cares about metal detectors or the Capital building for that matter.
WE NEED THIS BILL PASSED.....HELP!!!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Is that beneficial or not, Charles?

Is what beneficial?

Chas.

Dutton amendment beneficial expediting 910.

I new I should have quoted.

At the end of the day, it will not impact how LEO's do their job. The 5th Circuit has not adopted the black decision, but it may in the future. Whether it does or not, all an officer needs is something in addition to the open-carry of a firearm in order to interview the subject and ask for ID and CHL. So the impact of the Dutton amendment will be minimal.


Chas.

I was just trying to find out of it would help 910 get out of the senate and to Abbott quicker like some are implying. I don't think it has much practical benefit once passed.

There's a reason it was stripped out in committee and Huffines is rendering that plan moot. Additionally, we now have Sen. Whitmire and Sen. Huffman indicating that LEOs can stop and interview solely because they are wearing a handgun openly. Thanks Sen. Huffines.

Chas.

What was the reason or plan after stripping it in committee?

canvasbck wrote:Birdwell not offering SB11..............stated that House is promising movement on SB11

I hope this happens!

PBR wrote:Shows listed under the Notice of Intent for 5/22/2015 so does that mean it will be heard today now?

We don't know, it could. We have been told by the Lt's office it wouldn't...not today.
Then a deal apparently got finalized on other issues, it could. Then some speculate it will be next week.
Long way of saying....we just don't know!

nothing mentioned about an amendment regarding Campus Carry.....hmmmmmm
Looks like we better start pushing for SB11

Aggie_engr wrote:I keep getting Lt Gov's voicemail saying his office is not available when I call the two numbers that Charles posted. What am I doing wrong?

keeping trying try 512-463-0001