HB 910 Conference Committee

[The Annoyed Man]

Thank you. The political ignorance displayed by OCT and their supporters is simply appalling. They remind me of Adam Savage on "Myth Busters"....... "I reject your reality and substitute my own!!!" The thing is, their brand of reality is loopy, and propped up by fairy dust and wishes.

[v7a]

Would it be possible to prevent a filibuster by scheduling the vote on conference report before some other must-pass bill like budget or border security? (or have all the must-pass bills already been passed by both chambers?)

[ATX117]

The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

[viking1000]

Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .

[safety1]

After all the observations I've seen today.....I hate to say it, and I said I'd be hopeful until the end. Looks like we'll need a
special session to deal with this.

[TVGuy]

Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .

There is debate about whether they can dump the amendments completely, according to the rules, it sound like they can't.

All will be in the same room, doubtful if televised.

[jerry_r60]

The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

He did not put it back in. He put back his version, with some very minor changes. Those minor changes were all it took to invoke a different path for the bill. The changes made it not EXACTLY equal to what came over from the house.

[viking1000]

Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .

There is debate about whether they can dump the amendments completely, according to the rules, it sound like they can't.

All will be in the same room, doubtful if televised.

Thanks ....

[ATX117]

The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

He did not put it back in. If he did, this would not be playing out this way. He put back his version, with some very minor changes. Those minor changes were all it took to invoke a different path for the bill. The changes made it not EXACTLY equal to what came over from the house.

True, but my focus was on the intent. A few small changes in wording shouldn't have been an issue for the Republicans that bailed on it. For all practical purposes it was the same bill. And as far as the different path, that was started by Sen. Huffman when she stripped the Dutton amendment out. I'm not supporting Huffines here, I just want to see blame placed where it belongs.

[harrycallahan]

The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
      
      It was removed in the senate to facilitate passage.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

He did not put it back in. If he did, this would not be playing out this way. He put back his version, with some very minor changes. Those minor changes were all it took to invoke a different path for the bill. The changes made it not EXACTLY equal to what came over from the house.

True, but my focus was on the intent. A few small changes in wording shouldn't have been an issue for the Republicans that bailed on it. For all practical purposes it was the same bill. And as far as the different path, that was started by Sen. Huffman when she stripped the Dutton amendment out. I'm not supporting Huffines here, I just want to see blame placed where it belongs.

It was removed to facilitate passage in the senate.

[jerry_r60]

The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

He did not put it back in. If he did, this would not be playing out this way. He put back his version, with some very minor changes. Those minor changes were all it took to invoke a different path for the bill. The changes made it not EXACTLY equal to what came over from the house.

True, but my focus was on the intent. A few small changes in wording shouldn't have been an issue for the Republicans that bailed on it. For all practical purposes it was the same bill. And as far as the different path, that was started by Sen. Huffman when she stripped the Dutton amendment out. I'm not supporting Huffines here, I just want to see blame placed where it belongs.

The "intent" of the language was the same however I'm not sure about the intent of Huffines since it was clearly a deliberate change of language with a well understood impact on the possible path of the bill. By putting this in there, it created tactical options for the House that would not have existed otherwise.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .

Yes, but I can't get into how it can be done. There is a procedure.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

After all the observations I've seen today.....I hate to say it, and I said I'd be hopeful until the end. Looks like we'll need a
special session to deal with this.

That will never happen. The cost of a special session is far too high and the political cost to the Governor would be significant. Plus, he has already told the legislature to get their work done and don't expect a special session.

Chas.

[harrycallahan]

Can they dump both amendments ? Will the discussion be with both house and senate members in the same room, and will it be televised ... Not sure I am asking this right .

Yes, but I can't get into how it can be done. There is a procedure.

Chas.

That's the best news I've heard all day!