Sen. Huffines is killing HB910

[gljjt]

I am completely confused. Can someone summarize what is required to get HB910 passed, from its current status, and a guess as to how likely that is to happen.

Thanks!!!

A concurrence vote in the House. Up or down vote, yay or nay. Then to the Govs. desk.
If the House does not concur, it would go to a Conference Committee.

Depends who you ask on the "how likely" part.
There is a wide variety of opinions right here on the forum.

Thanks. The Huffines thing through me for a loop. So both Dutton and Huffines amendment's are out and that is what the Senate approved? What are the odds we will see that up/down concurrence vote? I gotta believe if it makes it to a vote, it will pass.

[TXBO]

The Senate and the House can grump all they want about Huffine and his inept stubborness, but if OC and Campus Carry don't pass, the blame will be on Republicans, particularly Republican leadership, not just one Senator. They have had plenty of time this session to pass both of these bills, they trumpeted support early on, passed nearly identical bills...then let them sit while they squabbled. The reason we are up against the end-of-session wall now is not because of Dutton or Huffines.

And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?

Grisham et al claimed early on that many of the Republicans in both chambers were squishy on the 2A -- it sounds like there is a good chance they will prove him right, and this is a stick that he will beat them with long and loud. (BTW, this is not something I look forward too, I did not support OCT and OCTCs antics).

Republican legislators better realize, they all own this, however it turns out. It doesn't matter how many other lesser gun bills pass, OC and Campus Carry are the battle flags, and if they fall it is a major defeat for 2A supporters and a major win for MDA and their ilk.

Couldn't agree more.

[SewTexas]

The main problem with Huffines/Dutton amendment is that some in power view it as precedent to other profiling legislation.

I thought was already had laws regarding profiling? What in particular are you thinking that may come to pass as a result

I understood Senator West to like the Amendment because he felt that it would make it plain that profiling would not be tolerated.

[CJD]

HB910 now on the "Items Eligible for Consideration" calendar for May 26 2:40 pm.

[safety1]

HB910 now on the "Items Eligible for Consideration" calendar for May 26 2:40 pm.

[safety1]

I am completely confused. Can someone summarize what is required to get HB910 passed, from its current status, and a guess as to how likely that is to happen.

Thanks!!!

A concurrence vote in the House. Up or down vote, yay or nay. Then to the Govs. desk.
If the House does not concur, it would go to a Conference Committee.

Depends who you ask on the "how likely" part.
There is a wide variety of opinions right here on the forum.

Thanks. The Huffines thing through me for a loop. So both Dutton and Huffines amendment's are out and that is what the Senate approved? What are the odds we will see that up/down concurrence vote? I gotta believe if it makes it to a vote, it will pass.

No the Dutton amend was removed in committee, then on the Senate floor Huffines put it back on, with a few words different.
That made it go back to the house for the concurrence. It was just posted that it will be eligible at 2:40pm tomorrow. That don't mean we will here it then.

[TXBO]

HB910 now on the "Items Eligible for Consideration" calendar for May 26 2:40 pm.

Thanks for the update. Great news.

[safety1]

"And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?" Quoted from ELB

I think this is the most important part. I supported amend 9 to be removed push, but if it was redundant what did it matter other than it was a political agreement, I understand that's how things work. I just hope cooler heads prevail....I do think the republicans own it either way, not one person. JMHO

[gljjt]

I am completely confused. Can someone summarize what is required to get HB910 passed, from its current status, and a guess as to how likely that is to happen.

Thanks!!!

A concurrence vote in the House. Up or down vote, yay or nay. Then to the Govs. desk.
If the House does not concur, it would go to a Conference Committee.

Depends who you ask on the "how likely" part.
There is a wide variety of opinions right here on the forum.

Thanks. The Huffines thing through me for a loop. So both Dutton and Huffines amendment's are out and that is what the Senate approved? What are the odds we will see that up/down concurrence vote? I gotta believe if it makes it to a vote, it will pass.

No the Dutton amend was removed in committee, then on the Senate floor Huffines put it back on, with a few words different.
That made it go back to the house for the concurrence. It was just posted that it will be eligible at 2:40pm tomorrow. That don't mean we will here it then.

Thanks. I think I have it. So I am cautiously optimistic. No slam dunk but not on terminal life support.

[joe817]

When HB 910 comes to the floor tomorrow for concurence vote it is a simple yea or nay vote. What determines its passage. IE: simple majority, plurality, 3/5 or what?

You see, I have to have SOMETHING to worry about tonight!

[safety1]

When HB 910 comes to the floor tomorrow for concurence vote it is a simple yea or nay vote. What determines its passage. IE: simple majority, plurality, 3/5 or what?

You see, I have to have SOMETHING to worry about tonight!

LOL, I have heard it said that its a simple majority.....again, I'm not expert.

[TXBO]

[And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?

I think this is the most important part. I supported amend 9 to be removed push, but if it was redundant what did it matter other than it was a political agreement
and I understand that's how things work. I just hope cooler heads prevail....I do think the republicans own it either way, not one person. JMHO

Absolutely right. Well stated.

[CJD]

When HB 910 comes to the floor tomorrow for concurence vote it is a simple yea or nay vote. What determines its passage. IE: simple majority, plurality, 3/5 or what?

You see, I have to have SOMETHING to worry about tonight!

Majority vote, but there's no guarantee it will go to the floor today, that's just when it's eligible.

[XinTX]

And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?

I have been a strong proponent for the Dutton/Huffines amendment from the get go. Were it not there, several cities could manufacture a defacto ban on OC via "license checks". And while the committee was correct in stating that the amendment merely restated the summation of case law, someone would have had the burden of going through the judicial proceedings in order to halt harassment of OC'ers via a series of "license checks". This amendment will hopefully remove that step in the process. Now at least the legislative intent is so stated and some of the bed wetter CLEO's can't try to wiggle around it claiming ambiguity in the law.

[Charles L. Cotton]

And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?

I have been a strong proponent for the Dutton/Huffines amendment from the get go. Were it not there, several cities could manufacture a defacto ban on OC via "license checks". And while the committee was correct in stating that the amendment merely restated the summation of case law, someone would have had the burden of going through the judicial proceedings in order to halt harassment of OC'ers via a series of "license checks". This amendment will hopefully remove that step in the process. Now at least the legislative intent is so stated and some of the bed wetter CLEO's can't try to wiggle around it claiming ambiguity in the law.

Not only is the Amendment unnecessary, it is ineffective and has placed two bills in jeopardy. As Huffines in-artfully but repeatedly stated during debate, the amendment (as well as the constitution) prevents detaining someone solely because they are wearing a handgun. A LEO needs something more, but it certainly isn't probable cause as he stated. Reasonable suspicion is the requirement and it would take very little more to meet that standard. Any furtive movement by the person openly-carrying a handgun would be sufficient. Avoiding eye contact, looking nervous, knowing that the person doesn't have a license because they have a misdemeanor conviction , appearing to be intoxicated, and countless other factors that could be present would justify the stop.

While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.