HB3218 set for hearing April 18th!

[JKTex]

A note to OCers: If you want a bill to pass out of committee it might be wise not to lecture the very person who holds the keys to the bill's fate in his hands about the Constitution. Insulting him is not going to motivate him to give your bill a fair hearing. I guarantee you, if HB 700 wasn't dead before today, the idiot woman who "testified" killed it deader than a doornail. It may even take years now to find a legislator with the courage to introduce another OC bill given the treatment the chairman received with this one. Please tell your "members" that self-inflicted bill-icide isn't going to move your bills to passage.

Agreed!!! What was the group she was there representing? I'd hope we find it's an anti-gun group and she was got to Austin in a Trojan horse. Although she testified positive and pretty civil on others. I don't understand why people feel the need to do that. They almost always get schooled!

[baldeagle]

A note to OCers: If you want a bill to pass out of committee it might be wise not to lecture the very person who holds the keys to the bill's fate in his hands about the Constitution. Insulting him is not going to motivate him to give your bill a fair hearing. I guarantee you, if HB 700 wasn't dead before today, the idiot woman who "testified" killed it deader than a doornail. It may even take years now to find a legislator with the courage to introduce another OC bill given the treatment the chairman received with this one. Please tell your "members" that self-inflicted bill-icide isn't going to move your bills to passage.

Agreed!!! What was the group she was there representing? I'd hope we find it's an anti-gun group and she was got to Austin in a Trojan horse. Although she testified positive and pretty civil on others. I don't understand why people feel the need to do that. They almost always get schooled!

I believe she was speaking on her own behalf. I recognized her voice. She has testified before on other pro-gun legislation. She must be either really dedicated or live close by and not have other obligations.

[RoyGBiv]

Any news from today re: 3218?
I've been unable to watch any of the live feed.

Thanks.!

[baldeagle]

Any news from today re: 3218?
I've been unable to watch any of the live feed.

Thanks.!

They're recorded. You can watch it for yourself here - http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... 3041810420" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Go to the 1:24 mark for the start of testimony on HB 3218 and HB 3219.

Edit: The same woman who lectured Chairman Pickett on the Constitution testified on the bill. Her name is Rachel Malone and she represents Texas Firearms Freedom.

Charles testified and gave the stats on the CHL record - 16 times less likely to commit a crime than a general citizen - 7 times less likely to commit a crime than LEOs.

Edit 2: Rep. Springer presented a committee substitute that removed the removal of the prohibition against carrying in correctional facilities.

[RoyGBiv]

They're recorded. You can watch it for yourself here - http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... 3041810420" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Go to the 1:24 mark for the start of testimony on HB 3218 and HB 3219.

Thanks.!! Will watch later... Much appreciated.

Edit 2: Rep. Springer presented a committee substitute that removed the removal of the prohibition against carrying in correctional facilities.

Not too much heartache in that one. Almost sounds like a planned gimme'

[Jeff Barriault]

Hey Charles, I just wanted to say thank you. Your testimony was exactly what needed to be said. I stand ready for our next step.

[stash]

I was not even aware of 3219. Does that mean if 3218 fails and 3219 passes, elected officials with chl's will be able too protect themselves in locations where the common person with a chl cannot? If that is the case, I don't feel so good about 3218 passing. Hope I am wrong.

[styxx]

This essentially a duplicate of my post under HB 700 Update, so I apologize for that . . .

Though I support the concept of open carry, I would personally rarely, if ever, open carry. More importantly, I am certain that I do not want to be painted with the same negative brush that the open carry bomb throwers (that are so prominent on other forums and who occasionally show up here) seem to want to paint themselves with. I do not support open carry to the point of actively messing up the chances of CHL rights and freedoms being moved forward.

Several speakers at the hearings on HB 2381 and HB 3218 spent far too much time in what I can only describe as rambling and sometimes almost incoherent whining and ranting about the fate of HB 700 - which was NOT up for discussion. I kept asking myself if they are just plain ignorant or if they were intentionally trying to tie the apparently failed HB 700 OC bill directly to CHL bills 2381 and 3218 with the only foreseeable outcome being a negative impact the CHL bills. Anyone care to enlighten me as to any logical reason that the apparently dead HB 700 and open carry "2nd amendment rights" were the theme of so much testimony on two CHL bills ??

[baldeagle]

I was not even aware of 3219. Does that mean if 3218 fails and 3219 passes, elected officials with chl's will be able too protect themselves in locations where the common person with a chl cannot? If that is the case, I don't feel so good about 3218 passing. Hope I am wrong.

That's exactly what it means.

[MeMelYup]

3218 is the one that covers the general population with a CHL. 3219 covers elected officials that think they deserve better than the people that elected them to the office they hold.

[baldeagle]

Anyone care to enlighten me as to any logical reason that the apparently dead HB 700 and open carry "2nd amendment rights" were the theme of so much testimony on two CHL bills ??

I think it's because some people have no respect for the process. When you go to committee meetings you are supposed to do one of three things; observe, register as for, against or on the bill and testify for, against or on the bill. (On means you are an informational resource, like an expert on law enforcement policy, a professional psychologist, an attorney, etc.)

Each bill gets its own separate hearing and you have to sign up for each one separately if you want to testify. But you're supposed to stick to that bill and no others. Rambling babbling about the Constitution irritates the committee members because it wastes time and means they will be finishing up later than they wanted to.

There are 41 House committees and six subcommittees. There are approximately 5500 bills introduced each session. That means, on average, each committee has to hear and consider an average of 117 bills. And they have time pressures, because those bills have to pass out of committee, get scheduled by Calendars, pass on the floor, be sent to the Senate and go through the entire process again and be done, engrossed and sent to the governor before 140 days have passed.

Imagine how you would feel if you were trying to give every bill a fair hearing and bozo after bozo walked up to the mike and rambled on incoherently about stuff completely unrelated to the bill you're discussing.

[JKTex]

3218 is the one that covers the general population with a CHL. 3219 covers elected officials that think they deserve better than the people that elected them to the office they hold.

There's already what some might call an "elite" class from the last session. In this case, 3218 needs to pass and will make 3219 obsolete, but if it can't, the backup is 3219 to get elected officials added to that "special" class. 3219 is good because it furthers the lifting of restrictions, but it sucks because it means not all CHL's are included yet. It's good, but could be better.

[jimlongley]

On ammunition labeling, Charles it is too bad you didn't get a chance to respond to his response.

"Guns have been around for hundreds of years . . ." and something about knowing well how far bullets travel, but then he says that he owned hundreds of guns and never knew how far they might shoot.

In other words, just like most of the drivers on our highways, he has no idea of the capabilities of the items he uses.

[styxx]

Thanks BaldEagle - That is what I thought, but you expressed it better than I could. When I start getting discouraged folks like you help pull me up again. Thanks ! That is the main reason that I am now active on this forum as opposed to other forums that will remain nameless.

[JKTex]

I want to through this out there referring to the hearing yesterday.

Springer was talking about the bill(s) and for one example, used Hospitals in his district and how employees are fearful because they aren't allowed to carry. I was confused as to why he was using that as an example, considering a hospital is not prohibited without being posted in accordance with 30.06 and being an employee, their employment policy would be the issue.

Am I missing something or was he shooting at the wrong target?