Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Says that nothing would have happened on OC without him, OCT and OCTC. 
Give me a break. He and his followers are the reason it has been so hard to get it done.Just to expand on what you said, for anyone who is watching for the bill, the bill will be listed on the "Items Eligible for Consideration" calendar, not the daily calendar. It will be eligible 24 hours after the Senate amendments and the analysis of those amendments are printed and distributed to the members of the House.K5GU wrote:The Senate voted and it passed. I haven't seen it on a House calendar yet but it will probably show up as soon as the analysis, amendment, budget board report, etc. get printed and published. It needs a motion to concur in the House then on to the Gov.stash wrote:I have been gone since this morning. Would someone kindly tell me where 910 is now? Has it been sent to the house and or is the house working today?
Various comments, stating misinformation.TVGuy wrote:What are you referring to?safety1 wrote:Some are intentionally spreading misinformation. I'd suspect
those doing so are not in support of what has happend.
More or less wanting to rain on the parade
Terry Holcomb is claiming credit for it, also, on the Texas Carry page.AF-Odin wrote:And now, in today's Killeen Daily Hearald Newspaper, we have CJ taking all the credit for getting this bill passed.
Now let us hope for no drama on the concurrance vote and Governor Abbot's signature.
On to SB-11!
I thought he only supported unlicensed OC. Oh well, he cannot OC a handgun away due to be ineligible for a CHL.AF-Odin wrote:And now, in today's Killeen Daily Hearald Newspaper, we have CJ taking all the credit for getting this bill passed.
Now let us hope for no drama on the concurrance vote and Governor Abbot's signature.
On to SB-11!
The Big Lie on the front page of their website today:nightmare69 wrote:I thought he only supported unlicensed OC. Oh well, he cannot OC a handgun away due to be ineligible for a CHL.AF-Odin wrote:And now, in today's Killeen Daily Hearald Newspaper, we have CJ taking all the credit for getting this bill passed.
Now let us hope for no drama on the concurrance vote and Governor Abbot's signature.
On to SB-11!
"Our members have worked hard the past two years to make this happen," remarked OCT President CJ Grisham. "Obviously, it's not everything we've been fighting for, but if you don't fight, you can't win. Anyone in business will tell you that you never ask for what you think they're going to give you. You always ask for more and you might be surprised with what you get."
I'm not sure of the timeline/deadline. But the Calendars Committee has not published their minutes for yesterday, May 22. So it might(hopefully, keep your fingers crossed, lol) be on that one. Also, the House will prolly call for a calendars committee meeting on the floor of the House today, to schedule a calendar for the early part of next week, and here again, it might be on that one.TexasJohnBoy wrote:So, SB11 must be on House calendar by 10:00PM Sunday night -- is this correct? Any word on that side of the fight?
The bill is headed back to the House, where its original author on Sunday said he will concur with the changes made in the Senate. Many Republicans are afraid of primary challenges from their right, so they seem likely to go along with Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, the author of House Bill 910.
...
On Sunday, Phillips said he didn't know when HB 910 will come back to the House, but it's expected sometime next week — the last full week of the legislative session.
Some House members said they are taking another look at the bill.
Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, said he got a call from his mother, who said she was asking as a constituent whether HB 910 as amended is a good idea. Hughes said he hadn't decided whether it is.
If the House concurs with the Senate, the bill goes to Gov. Greg Abbott for his signature or his veto.
Yes, it is on "Major State"Owens wrote:SB11 is on house daily for Tuesday, 5/26
Just my personal opinion here but I'm glad the portion allowing big cities to opt out wasn't in the final version. All that was in my opinion was a move on the liberal's part playing politics with San Antionio and Houston. GARAUNTEED you would have those two cities and maybe another saying "oh, okay, well we opt out!" and you throw the second amendment in the trash.jmra wrote:No. This confusion comes from the voting on the house floor before the house passed it on to the senate. An amendment (# 8 I think) was proposed to allow cities with a population of more than 1,000,000 to opt out. Before the amendment was tabled a vote was taken to lower the 1,000,000 requirement in the amendment to 750,000 which passed changing the wording of the amendment (this was labeled amendment 9). A vote was then taken to table amendment 8 which made the passage of amendment 9 of no consequence.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.
So in short, amendment 9 (which passed) was an amendment to amendment 8 (which failed). So, no opt out.
