TexasCHLforum.com

Since the other threads on HB 910 are getting very long, I am starting a new thread to discuss the next stage in the drive to get HB 910 passed.

As I said in a different thread last night, I will continue to hold out hope for OC until the final legislative deadline passes on Sunday night at midnight. Having read some of the posts from later last night, it appears there is still reason to hope.

So if they strip this out or put back in the original amendment, does it go back to the house and then the Governor's desk?

If this goes to the Senate, it's dead! The Democrats have already stated that they'll filibuster the bill.

cprems wrote:So if they strip this out or put back in the original amendment, does it go back to the house and then the Governor's desk?

If this goes to the Senate, it's dead! The Democrats have already stated that they'll filibuster the bill.

Once they reach a deal, both chambers must vote on the conference report. If it passes both chambers, then it goes to the Gov. for signature.

Who chose the conferees for the House and why in the world would Nevarez be part of it?

steveincowtown wrote:Who chose the conferees for the House and why in the world would Nevarez be part of it?

Here: http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conference Committee
If a conference committee is requested, the presiding officers each appoint five members
from their respective chambers to serve on the committee. The senate rules require that at
least two of the senate conferees be members of the senate committee from which the bill
was reported. A conference committee’s charge is limited to reconciling differences between
the two chambers, and the committee, unless so directed, may not alter, amend, or omit
text that is not in disagreement. The committee also may not add text on any matter that is
not in disagreement or that is not included in either version of the bill in question. After the
committee has reached an agreement, a report is prepared for submittal to the house and
senate. The report must be approved by at least three conferees from each chamber and must
contain the text of the bill as approved by the conference committee, a side-by-side analysis
comparing the text of the compromise bill to both the house and the senate versions, and
the signatures of those members of the conference committee who approved the report. A
conference committee report is not subject to amendment by the house or senate but must
be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
Should the proposed compromise remain unacceptable to either chamber, it may be
returned to the same conference committee for further deliberation, with or without specific
instructions, or the appointment of a new conference committee may be requested. Failure of
the conference committee to reach agreement kills the measure. If the conference committee
report is acceptable to both chambers, the bill is enrolled, signed by both presiding officers in
the presence of their respective chambers, and sent to the governor.

If I understand the stated purpose of the committee, it is to change and/or omit amendment 9, because unless otherwise instructed, that is the only difference between the two bills.

I'm probably wrong but my best feeling to get it passed is that the conference committee cannot come to an agreement thus giving the House a second vote on it and hopefully it passes then. Cause if Senate gets to vote on it again I'm sure Ellis, West and others will do whatever they can to bust it out.

PBR wrote:I'm probably wrong but my best feeling to get it passed is that the conference committee cannot come to an agreement thus giving the House a second vote on it and hopefully it passes then. Cause if Senate gets to vote on it again I'm sure Ellis, West and others will do whatever they can to bust it out.

I have thought the same idea at times. A dangerous tactic I think. I'd prefer for each body to actually grow up, speak their mind and allow a vote. I may be old school, but they might try this novel idea and actually work at their job. Now I know filibusters are a legal and proper part of their job, but when all of the other antics this session are factored in I think they've had their time, it's money time and that's only earned with a vote. It is the single most important indicator a voter has as to where those whom represent them actually stand on an issue and if the democrats opt to filibuster, well that's the cowards way out in my opinion.

clerk ring the bell, this is a record vote!

In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

Beiruty wrote:In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

It would not surprise me if the Huffines' amendment was purposely reworded as the poison pill. Why? Waco and time. The bill stalled in the Senate giving the opposition time to rally. Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders. Not so good. Enter Senate committee by properly removing the Dutton amendment. It may have been palatable before Waco, but NOT after. Now were back to the house and Mr. Huffines is at the mic. A greater puppet for killing Open Carry there isn't. He was completely out classed and made a fool all while the devil whispering to his ear. I believe whom ever wrote that amendment did so with an express intent to derail HB 910. Think of it this way and ask yourself, can you copy and paste with a computer? Do you think he or his aides can? I bet they do thousands of times daily. He expressly said that his amendment was identical to that of the House version and it wasn't. End of story. End of Open Carry.

My speculation. If Huffines personally reworded the amendment it is a was to get his fingerprints on it with Dutton. He had groups like OCT texting/tweeting him to not back down, so freshman Hutfines drug the debate for more than for 6 hours believing he was racking up please political capital with his constituents.

Any word on the conference committee from the senate yet?

PBR wrote:I'm probably wrong but my best feeling to get it passed is that the conference committee cannot come to an agreement thus giving the House a second vote on it and hopefully it passes then. Cause if Senate gets to vote on it again I'm sure Ellis, West and others will do whatever they can to bust it out.

That's how I'm seeing it also. Unless this gets to the Senate in the next 24 hours or so, I can't see how we avoid an Ellis filibuster. But I don't know all the rules that apply to that.

Also, what exactly is the conference committee going to "iron out"? There are basically 3 or 4 words with of difference that don't change a thing. If we're working under the assumption that the House will pass it without the Huffines amendment, you can't avoid sending it back to the Senate. If we're working under the assumption that the House will pass it as is if given a second chance, then what is different in two days that their minds?

I apologize if this has been mentioned before but did Dutton speak for the sole purpose of antagonizing and making sure the members who had already approved his ammendment turn against it and vote NO?

Scott Farkus wrote:

PBR wrote:I'm probably wrong but my best feeling to get it passed is that the conference committee cannot come to an agreement thus giving the House a second vote on it and hopefully it passes then. Cause if Senate gets to vote on it again I'm sure Ellis, West and others will do whatever they can to bust it out.

That's how I'm seeing it also. Unless this gets to the Senate in the next 24 hours or so, I can't see how we avoid an Ellis filibuster. But I don't know all the rules that apply to that.

Also, what exactly is the conference committee going to "iron out"? There are basically 3 or 4 words with of difference that don't change a thing. If we're working under the assumption that the House will pass it without the Huffines amendment, you can't avoid sending it back to the Senate. If we're working under the assumption that the House will pass it as is if given a second chance, then what is different in two days that their minds?

What they can do is posted above. Essentially it is to iron out the amendment number 9 by modifying it or removing it entirely. To think the house will change their collective mind and vote yes if the same bill is sent back might be a bit risky.

Agreed, but is it more risky to think it can get through the Senate again at this late date, with Ellis chomping at the bit to bolster his NRA F rating?

I seriously don't know. I guess that depends on how quickly the conference committee gets done.

I can hear it now, Ellis, West, and Dutton bragging about how they took on the mighty NRA in Texas and WON!

Makes me want to puke just thinking about it.