TX: Lt Gov Patrick says not enough Senate votes to pass Con Carry

[03Lightningrocks]

I have to wonder how many more people will actually carry on a regular basis if Constitutional carry passes. I bet that people who are wanting to carry on a regular basis already have an LTC. I also bet there are a lot of folks already carrying concealed with no LTC under the 12/6 rules. I can still remember all the hoopla about blood in the streets when Texas first approved the CHL. None of it came to pass. This will be very similar. I will also say that having an LTC does not mean much at all about ability to shoot. A one day class does not an expert make.

[EP45]

What are 12/6 rules?

[03Lightningrocks]

What are 12/6 rules?

It's Better to be Tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[03Lightningrocks]

[ELB]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... arry-bill/

On April 27, 2021, Abbott told WBAP radio that he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk.

Abbott said, “Once the Senate passes it out, the House and Senate will convene and work out any differences and get it to my desk. And I’ll be signing it.”

Well about bloody time.

And I note he said "Once the Senate passes it out..." Not "If." I hope he knows something I don't.

[oljames3]

I sometimes hear the argument that all of our constitutional rights have limitations. I don’t see that with the second amendment at all.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That includes any test, instructions, and teaching. I view those as infringements (in my little mind).

Also anyone who thinks that the “proficient qualification” means you know how to handle a firearm is smoking funny cigarettes.

[Syntyr]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... arry-bill/

On April 27, 2021, Abbott told WBAP radio that he will sign the legislation if it reaches his desk.

Abbott said, “Once the Senate passes it out, the House and Senate will convene and work out any differences and get it to my desk. And I’ll be signing it.”

Well about bloody time.

And I note he said "Once the Senate passes it out..." Not "If." I hope he knows something I don't.

I think they are trying to stall. Figuring they can run out the clock for this year.

[Papa_Tiger]

I think they are trying to stall. Figuring they can run out the clock for this year.

You obviously haven't paid attention to how the legislature works. There is a public hearing tomorrow where this will be the only bill discussed. Some time after that, the committee will offer up, vote on and pass out a committee substitute with the changes that the Senate believe make the House Bill better. For a pattern of what it might look like, see SB 2224.

Then the Senate Committee substitute of CS HB 1927 will go to the Senate floor where it the rules will be suspended to allow the consideration of the bill. This takes (I believe) 18 Senators to do. Anti-gun, or weakening amendments will be proposed by the Democrats and voted down in a marathon session that will take up pretty much all of the Senate's time that day. It will ultimately pass along partisan lines and then will be sent back to the House for concurrence (not likely), or appointing a conference committee (most likely) where members of both chambers hammer out differences that will then be given a simple up/down vote by each chamber. This will most likely happen in the last 3-5 days of the session.

The final bill passed will provide for some form of "Constitutional Carry", but may not resemble very closely the original (and in my opinion, fairly good) bill voted on in the House.

[Papa_Tiger]

Let me also say, if they wanted to stall, this never would have had a special Senate committee formed to discuss this one issue or had it populated so heavily with Republicans. It would have been assigned to a regular committee and left there to die after possibly being given a hearing in the last week of the session like so many of the cannabis bills last session.

[Flightmare]

I think they are trying to stall. Figuring they can run out the clock for this year.

You obviously haven't paid attention to how the legislature works. There is a public hearing tomorrow where this will be the only bill discussed. Some time after that, the committee will offer up, vote on and pass out a committee substitute with the changes that the Senate believe make the House Bill better. For a pattern of what it might look like, see SB 2224.

Then the Senate Committee substitute of CS HB 1927 will go to the Senate floor where it the rules will be suspended to allow the consideration of the bill. This takes (I believe) 18 Senators to do. Anti-gun, or weakening amendments will be proposed by the Democrats and voted down in a marathon session that will take up pretty much all of the Senate's time that day. It will ultimately pass along partisan lines and then will be sent back to the House for concurrence (not likely), or appointing a conference committee (most likely) where members of both chambers hammer out differences that will then be given a simple up/down vote by each chamber. This will most likely happen in the last 3-5 days of the session.

The final bill passed will provide for some form of "Constitutional Carry", but may not resemble very closely the original (and in my opinion, fairly good) bill voted on in the House.

Let me also say, if they wanted to stall, this never would have had a special Senate committee formed to discuss this one issue or had it populated so heavily with Republicans. It would have been assigned to a regular committee and left there to die after possibly being given a hearing in the last week of the session like so many of the cannabis bills last session.

I agree with this your analysis Papa_Tiger. There may also be some backroom dealing going on to garner support from fence sitting senators. Patrick may be trying to get some legislation filed by fence sitters to be heard on the floor, in exchange for them voting to bring this bill to the floor. Strangely, it's a higher standard to get a bill to the floor than it is to get one to pass.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

From my understanding of the 2nd, some of you are getting the cart before the horse, according to the founding fathers way of thinking.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

founding fathers premise 1: a free state is a peachy idea (desired result)
founding fathers premise 2: a well regulated militia is necessary to preserve the above (engine to achieve the desired result)

As I understand it, in the late 1700's, "well regulated" meant adequately skilled, and adequately equipped.

Founding fathers premise 3: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (pre-requisite for supplying that engine in premise 2)

The founding fathers were all graduates of the school of hard knocks, early american wilderness division. You''d better have the skill to bark that squirrel up that tree, or you weren't getting lunch today. You'd better be able to lung/heart punch that deer on the other side of the vale, or you weren't getting dinner, dried jerky, and a new shirt and moccasins. You'd better be able to load, fire, and hit the attacking indians before they burned you up in your cabin. So

1) the founding fathers, like Neo in 'The Matrix' believed that to get to premise 2, "We need guns, lots of guns". (and ammo) And because they existed in an environment where you acquired the needed skill as a natural offshoot of premise 2, or you got a Darwin award (you starved, the red man got you, or the red coats got you) they
2) saw no need to elaborate on training as part of the process, beyond using one of the meanings of "well regulated".

So those of you who think you need to pass a test before you acquire the means to defend yourself, have it bass-ackwards in the eyes of the founding fathers. Winston Churchill thought you were full of it too. He didn't say "give us lots of training, and we will finish the job", he said "give us the TOOLS and we will FINISH the job". (and yeah, they did some training along the way with all the arsenal of democracy lend/lease toys.)

If you give most reasonably intelligent, results-oriented humans a tool, they usually pretty quickly figure out that tool is relatively useless if they can't use it effectively. So then they go read the instructions. Or ask somebody. Or start competing in IDPA, USPSA, etc, even though they suck at it at first, because they see the need. Or mercy me, ACTUALLY GO PAY SOMEBODY FOR TRAINING, ALL ON THEIR OWN. Because they came to that realization posed by J.C. at ASP when he asked "is your EDC a defensive tool, or just a woobie?" (no, I'm not putting up a link, go search it on YouTube)

Those of you who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, but think people need to pass a course before "CONSTITUTIONAL carry", may need to re-evaluate your position, because in my opinion, you're violating that oath you took, and the founding fathers are very disappointed in you.

Hope you all enjoyed my rant. I'm going back to lurker mode now.

[RoyGBiv]

I sometimes hear the argument that all of our constitutional rights have limitations. I don’t see that with the second amendment at all.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That includes any test, instructions, and teaching. I view those as infringements (in my little mind).

Also anyone who thinks that the “proficient qualification” means you know how to handle a firearm is smoking funny cigarettes.

Count me in here.

Current LTC is absolutely no proof of proficiency. I'm completely ok with that.
Get training or don't. Your call.

[Flightmare]

https://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPla ... t_id=4056
Live stream of senate hearing

[jerry_r60]

https://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPla ... t_id=4056
Live stream of senate hearing

Just to add to this, it's a Senate committee hearing and not yet the full senate.

[allisji]

Will it pass out of committee? It sounds like it should since they basically loaded the committee with supporters of the legislation.

Will it pass the Senate? I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it's only just a wish list item.