TexasCHLforum.com

baseballguy2001 wrote:

jmra wrote:So, is the owner of this forum "terribly mis-informed" or a "government lobbyist"? Can't wait for an answer to this one.

Mr. Cotton can't tell us the inside scoop on what's happening in Austin -- draw you own conclusion, I did.

All my reps in Austin voted correctly in my view. They were part of the 19 who voted against RINO Speaker Strauss, and they all voted for the licensed open carry legislation. As voters we voted in the most conservative legislature in history, and it looks like as 2A supporters, we got hosed.

I'll step on a soap box for a minute....

There are lots of new folks on here watching the legislature for the first time. Many have commented, myself included even though this is now the third session I've watched (not very many compared to others) that it's been very educational. What this admits is that I/we didn't really understand all the ins and outs of the process. We learn. It's interesting how adamant many of us are in our position and in the next breath admit that we are neophytes in how this all works. I get that we are frustrated and want an outcome but we should watch and learn and be cautious with our bravado.

I have seen Charles make a statement a few times that came to mind as I watched the debate yesterday. When the people that are usually very anti 2a/gun are the ones supporting what sounds good for us and/or, the ones who have been long time proven supporters are voting against it, that's a pretty good sign there is more to it than I/we are seeing on the surface and we should be thinking twice about our position. Our position is more than likely based on a lack of info or understanding. Doesn't mean always but a caution flag should be flying. I think the phrase I've seen is "when someone who is F rated is voting for it"....

....stepping off the box.

We learned the other night that it's not over until it's over. We have a threat of a filibuster now and that may very well happen but who knows what other deals might get struck between now and the end. Doesn't look good but just saying......

TVGuy wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Rvrrat14 wrote:So did the Dutton amendment get incuded???

No, but it's unnecessary.

I'm guessing what you meant by unnecessary.

This was discussed / debated on here when this went through the House. On the one hand you have some saying it would be unconstitutional to stop and ask for a license if no other crime is committed however, like car drivers licenses at DWI checkpoints, if you stop everyone you see carrying in a particular area and not randomly pick out certain individuals, then I think there is case law supporting that activity. Of course IANAL.

It's certainly not necessary in terms of affecting any decision I make on if I would OC or not.

Texas' opinion is that DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional under the 4A in the US Constitution. That's why we do not have them here.

You can't stop everyone and ask if they have a driver license, that's been found in violation of 4A by SCOTUS.

I understood that these checkpoints do occur in Texas i.e. outside of Forth Worth. That the justification was that people were not randomly pulled over but everyone passing the checkpoint. I'll accept I am misinformed if that's the case. I either read old info or thought I was reading something on Texas and was not.

TVGuy wrote:

Rvrrat14 wrote:So did the Dutton amendment get incuded???

No, but it's unnecessary.

I'm guessing what you meant by unnecessary.

This was discussed / debated on here when this went through the House. On the one hand you have some saying it would be unconstitutional to stop and ask for a license if no other crime is committed however, like car drivers licenses at DWI checkpoints, if you stop everyone you see carrying in a particular area and not randomly pick out certain individuals, then I think there is case law supporting that activity. Of course IANAL.

It's certainly not necessary in terms of affecting any decision I make on if I would OC or not.

canvasbck wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Gun nuts now going after Chairman Huffman.

It was Joan Huffman who killed Constitutional Carry in the Texas Senate. It was Joan Huffman who added that stupid "no open carry on college campuses" amendment, and it was Joan Huffman who got rid of this common sense amendment to stop police harassment of open carriers. This is the 3rd strike. Joan Huffman the gun grabber has got to go!

https://www.facebook.com/crimespreezones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


She may not be perfect but I think she's done a respectable job considering.

And the circular firing squad begins!

Huffman has done a commendable job with both hearings held on OC and the one on CC.

That's so frustrating. After watching these hearings, there is no way to honestly label her a "gun grabber". There is a large gap between where she stands and those on the left that don't want anyone to own a gun much less walk around with it.

I joined back late. What is the committee substitute? Did they already drop the Dutton amendment?

Adjourning and stated they will take up HB910 about 15min after adjournment of the full body.

Hopefully we won't have to go through all of the same testimony that's already been done when the Senate version went through the first time but I think that's wishful thinking. Hopefully we won't have to have all the amendment attempts and lots of speeches.

dejadoo wrote:Can someone post a link to the feed mentioned above?


Thanks!

http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... nt_id=1345" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This session is nearing an end but if you want to be able to answer many questions on bill language, status etc. for yourself, then: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is a must resource. You can create bill lists to make it easy to come in and "run" your list to see updates. Actual bill text is posted for every bill and you can see house, senate and committee calendars.