SB11 & HB910 This week....

[ELB]

Committee HB910 Analysis

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

So there was no real legal reason to put it in the bill in the first place....but once it was in, there was also no real legal reason to take it out either. But doing so forces the bill to go back to the House. Sigh.

[jmra]

Committee HB910 Analysis

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

So there was no real legal reason to put it in the bill in the first place....but once it was in, there was also no real legal reason to take it out either. But doing so forces the bill to go back to the House. Sigh.

If you search Chas' posts he gave an excellent explanation as to why it was removed in committee.

[v7a]

If the bill gets amended on the floor with Campus Carry it will need to go back to the House anyway. We'll find out soon enough (Friday).

[thechl]

Looks SB 273 made it to the House floor for Friday. Appears SB 11 was left languishing in Calendars.

[CJD]

Looks SB 273 made it to the House floor for Friday. Appears SB 11 was left languishing in Calendars.

Maybe they are anticipating a campus carry amendment on 910 and figured why bother.

[thechl]

Sure, let's go with that.

[safety1]

Looks SB 273 made it to the House floor for Friday. Appears SB 11 was left languishing in Calendars.

Maybe they are anticipating a campus carry amendment on 910 and figured why bother.

if the senate amends HB910 with CC, does it still go to the house floor for a concur vote.
or back to a commitee on the house side?
I'm thinking it only goes back to a commitee if the house didn't concur?

[TexasJohnBoy]

It would get a concurrence vote when eligible and when the author calls for the vote. If the house concurs with the amended bill (simple majority vote) then it goes to Abbot. If the house does not concur, then you get a conference committee.

[safety1]

Looks SB 273 made it to the House floor for Friday. Appears SB 11 was left languishing in Calendars.

Maybe they are anticipating a campus carry amendment on 910 and figured why bother.

Sounds feasible, the Senate already passed SB11, why not just do it the easy way without listening to
all the yak in the House.

[safety1]

It would get a concurrence vote when eligible and when the author calls for the vote. If the house concurs with the amended bill (simple majority vote) then it goes to Abbot. If the house does not concur, then you get a conference committee.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Looks SB 273 made it to the House floor for Friday. Appears SB 11 was left languishing in Calendars.

Maybe they are anticipating a campus carry amendment on 910 and figured why bother.

Sounds feasible, the Senate already passed SB11, why not just do it the easy way without listening to
all the yak in the House.

I have my fingers crossed. Campus carry legislation would mean a lot to a lot of Texans who work to make our state better in higher Ed. No reason that group of licensed law abiding citizens should be prohibited from protecting themselves if the need were to arise.

[NotRPB]

Published Tweet:
Texas Exes ‏@TexasExes now52 seconds ago

Legislators Weigh Adding 'Campus Carry' to 'Open Carry' Bill http://txex.es/1Hupfj7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; @TheAlcalde @UTAdvocates #highered #txlege

links to Published Article:
Legislators Weigh Adding ‘Campus Carry’ to ‘Open Carry’ Bill
By Andrew Roush in Promote & Protect on May 20, 2015 at 6:04 pm | No Comments
http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2015/05/le ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bladed]

Looks SB 273 made it to the House floor for Friday. Appears SB 11 was left languishing in Calendars.

Maybe they are anticipating a campus carry amendment on 910 and figured why bother.

if the senate amends HB910 with CC, does it still go to the house floor for a concur vote.
or back to a commitee on the house side?
I'm thinking it only goes back to a commitee if the house didn't concur?

There is no scenario in which a floor amendment can make a bill go back to a House or Senate committee. If an opposite-chamber (in this case Senate) amendment is not acceptable to the originating chamber, the bill goes to a conference committee made up of five Representatives and five Senators, and that conference committee works out a compromise.

As you surmised, HB 910 would only go to conference committee if the House refused to concur in changes made by the Senate.

[safety1]

So will HB910 be amended to include Campus Carry on the Senate floor??
What do ya'll think?

I'm hopeful, but I wonder if the Senate is bold enough to make this move.

[ELB]

Comimittee HB910 Analysis

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

So there was no real legal reason to put it in the bill in the first place....but once it was in, there was also no real legal reason to take it out either. But doing so forces the bill to go back to the House. Sigh.

If you search Chas' posts he gave an excellent explanation as to why it was removed in committee.

No. He addressed only the political reason for doing it in the committee instead of on the floor. My point is that there is no legally effective reason it had to come out in the Senate once it had been put in by the house. It was only political eyewash and it delayed progress.