TexasCHLforum.com

juno106 wrote:Respectfully disagree.

By removing Dutton, it precluded any chance at going to directly to the Governor.

The Governor was pressured to veto open carry if it arrived at his desk with a Dutton/Huffines amendment. Would he actually veto it? I dunno, he is a strong supporter of 2A but also a strong supporter of law enforcement. Seemed a risky proposition.

juno106 wrote:By removing Dutton, it guaranteed going back to the House, for a concurrence vote.

That seems to me to be exactly what the House and Senate leadership wanted. Remember, right before open carry started moving in the Senate, Lt. Gov. Patrick announced some sort of agreement had been reached between himself and Straus. Based on Sen. Estes' comments at the outset of Senate debate on HB910, I suspect part of that agreement was for the Senate to send a clean bill back to the House, sans Dutton amendment, so they could concur. This would allow them to appease the LEOs who were unhappy, as well as avoid putting the Gov. in a position to have to choose sides re: whether to veto the bill. Huffines' amendment was the monkey wrench here, and I believe that is why the House then voted NOT to concur.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Huffman didn't delete the Dutton Amendment all by her onesies. Just sayin'. You can't lay all of that on her. Stripping it out was heavily lobbied for, and not just directed at her.

Very true, she gets the blame/credit since she chaired the committee that deleted the Dutton Amendment, but enough other Senators on the committee obviously agreed to deleted it, or else it would not have happened.

juno106 wrote:You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

NorthTexas wrote:Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.

Please read what I posted more closely. I never said the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate. I said there was new and strong opposition to it from LEOs that caused Huffman to strip it. You may disagree, but to me, that seemed the prudent and responsible decision - strip a now controversial amendment so that the underlying bill with otherwise wide support can breeze through the legislative process, vs. leave the controversial amendment attached and possibly have it get bogged down with attacks and semi-filibusters (as we saw with Huffines' amendment), and possibly even lose the Senate vote.

It's easy to look back now, seeing that the Senate did indeed vote for Huffines' amendment, and claim there was no rational basis for Huffman to strip out the similar Dutton amendment. However, at the time, and considering the controversy, there was no way to know, and I believe she made the move that was in our best interests - work to minimize risks to the bill so we can get something passed, instead of risking everything and possibly ending up with nothing.

Ruark wrote:If I'm understanding it correctly, it's dead meat. It will never survive the filibusters. Tell me I'm wrong.

It ain't over till it's over. I'm impressed with the progress today (in stark contrast to the rest of the session) - they do seem determined to get something passed, now that we're down to the wire. It could be voted on tomorrow. We'll have to see...

juno106 wrote:...or

Huffman could have left in the Dutton amendment, there would have been no need for the Huffines amendment, and HB910 would have gone straight to the Gov instead of House concurrence.

Hate seeing Huffines being blamed for Huffman's blunder...

Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes. Also, while it has not been stated directly, it has been suggested that the "deal" reached between Straus and Patrick called for passing HB 910 in the Senate, without the Dutton amendment, so that it could go to a conference committee, where the House would concur (since they were now aware of the LEO concerns). Huffines interfered with this in an attempt to burnish his political credentials for a future Congressional run.