HB 560 - Holy Grail?

[Lambda Force]

I did not want to comment again, but in next elections, each nominee would be asked would you co-author and sponsor HB 560?

Why bother when we already know who did or didn't sign on to HB 560 this year?

[Liberty]

We really don't know! 560 was silently and pretty anonymously killed. Was killed by the homeland security committee. The rest of the lege didn't get a chance to take a stand. The problem with the process is that the state reps have almost complete plausible deniability. They can claim one position behave contrary to it and then claim it was beyond their control. A Texas State Reps decisions and actions are often more about positioning and politicking than it is about real issues. This is why gun bills, if they get to the open floor, always get approved by large margins but have such a difficult time actually getting put to an open vote.

[Lambda Force]

They didn't vote on the floor. That's true.

But Beruity proposed asking each candidate at election time if they would co-author or sponsor a bill similar to HB 560. I think that is unnecessary and possibly misleading. What politicians say to get our votes doesn't always match what they do in office. A better indication of where they stand is whether or not they signed on as a co-author or sponsor to HB 560 this session.

[Ruark]

They didn't vote on the floor. That's true.

But Beruity proposed asking each candidate at election time if they would co-author or sponsor a bill similar to HB 560. I think that is unnecessary and possibly misleading. What politicians say to get our votes doesn't always match what they do in office. A better indication of where they stand is whether or not they signed on as a co-author or sponsor to HB 560 this session.

This is part of what frustrates me. Even if we DO round up all these supportive sponsors, endorsers, etc. in the legislature, it still just takes one person to sink it.

[canvasbck]

They didn't vote on the floor. That's true.

But Beruity proposed asking each candidate at election time if they would co-author or sponsor a bill similar to HB 560. I think that is unnecessary and possibly misleading. What politicians say to get our votes doesn't always match what they do in office. A better indication of where they stand is whether or not they signed on as a co-author or sponsor to HB 560 this session.

This is part of what frustrates me. Even if we DO round up all these supportive sponsors, endorsers, etc. in the legislature, it still just takes one person to sink it.

This is what is wrong in Austin and in Washington!!

It is impossible to target those who are adept at killing bills quietly without also throwing bombs at those who were friendly to us behind the scenes. For all we know (and will ever know) it could have been a co-author who took part in killing it as part of a deal to get support on other legislation.

[omegaman]

I'm really looking forward to reading Charles' summary of the sausage making this session, when it's all said and done.

[Boxerrider]

We really don't know! 560 was silently and pretty anonymously killed. Was killed by the homeland security committee. The rest of the lege didn't get a chance to take a stand. The problem with the process is that the state reps have almost complete plausible deniability. They can claim one position behave contrary to it and then claim it was beyond their control. A Texas State Reps decisions and actions are often more about positioning and politicking than it is about real issues. This is why gun bills, if they get to the open floor, always get approved by large margins but have such a difficult time actually getting put to an open vote.

I emailed my representative, J. D. Sheffield, about it last spring and never received a reply. That tells me where he stands.

[Lambda Force]

I emailed my representative, J. D. Sheffield, about it last spring and never received a reply. That tells me where he stands.

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." - S G Hupp

[ScottDLS]

I think we need to take a page from the US Congress, and name our bills like HB560 something very patriotic and law enforcement friendly, regardless of the contents of the bill.

HB560 - Saving First Responders Lives by Empowering Honest Texans Act
HB1911 - Restoring Civil Rights to Minorities Act
SB349 - Providing Safe Educational Environment Act
SB88 - Improving Stoplight Safety to Save the Children Act

[CleverNickname]

HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

[Papa_Tiger]

HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

Be careful what you wish for there. That has been used to ensure that the Legislature and ONLY the Legislature has that power. Otherwise cities would be free to create their own ordinances and regulations regulating the wearing of arms.

[ScottDLS]

HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

Be careful what you wish for there. That has been used to ensure that the Legislature and ONLY the Legislature has that power. Otherwise cities would be free to create their own ordinances and regulations regulating the wearing of arms.

Except that they are preempted by State law from doing so and removing the Legislature's specific grant of power to regulate, doesn't seem to make counties and municipalities able to do so. That is if they haven't found that power somewhere in the other 199 pages of the Texas Constitution.

[locke_n_load]

HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

I wonder when that clause was added to the Texas Constitution - something tells me it was not in there originally... and whoever added it was a liar (it's always about control, not crime).

[G.A. Heath]

HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

I wonder when that clause was added to the Texas Constitution - something tells me it was not in there originally... and whoever added it was a liar (it's always about control, not crime).

During reconstruction.

[RoyGBiv]

So does the collective applaude or condemn the actions of the House Freedom Caucus this week?
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-l ... ouse-learn

Stickland et-al ain't for the faint of heart. But his 2A Bona Fides are hard to deny.
Sometimes change is messy. Sometimes messy isn't productive.

Good or bad?