SB11 & HB910 This week....

[NotRPB]

Personally ... as long as it is decriminalized everywhere, I don't care.
They can just make "Rules" like Virginia Tech had
see & notice Bradford's reasoning in the true event 1 year before the massacre at Virginia Tech, where carrying was legal, but rules against it
http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/opinion/u ... e526f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just get it passed decriminalizing campus carry on campuses, they can opt out by making "rules" and I'm fine with that, Rules make people feel good like those gunbuster signs which ostensibly don't allow Beretta M9s,If we have to go slow, ok, but

for goodness sakes get the right to defend yourself decriminalized,

it's ridiculous that it is a criminal offense to try to keep your life no matter where you are.

[canvasbck]

I'm with Annoyed Man. 95% is better than nothing. The vast majority of CHL holders won't be practicing OC in metropolitan areas where the ammendment opposition comes from, but I anticipate seeing a lot of OC on opening day of dove season on 9/1/16 out in the rural area restaurants between morning and afternoon hunts! Get the law on the books, and fix it down the road.

Now, just get the darn thing to the Governor!

Cheers!

If a ton of folks carry on opening day of dove season, 9/1/15, there will likely be a few arrests and/or citations. The law won't take effect until 01/01/16.

I'm a little bummed about that. I'm elk hunting in Van Horn in September. I'll be hunting with my .500 and that thing is a real pain to take off and on for a trip to town.

ETA: oops! Now I see you were talking about dove season NEXT year. My bad.........still bummed about having to take off the holster for a town trip on the elk hunt.

[J.R.@A&M]

I think it is important to get beyond decriminalizing campus carry. It actually needs to be implemented in enough buildings with classrooms in order to give the lie to the opponents' wild claims about frat boy shoot-outs during finals week.

[camjr]

I'm with Annoyed Man. 95% is better than nothing. The vast majority of CHL holders won't be practicing OC in metropolitan areas where the ammendment opposition comes from, but I anticipate seeing a lot of OC on opening day of dove season on 9/1/16 out in the rural area restaurants between morning and afternoon hunts! Get the law on the books, and fix it down the road.

Now, just get the darn thing to the Governor!

Cheers!

If a ton of folks carry on opening day of dove season, 9/1/15, there will likely be a few arrests and/or citations. The law won't take effect until 01/01/16.

I'm a little bummed about that. I'm elk hunting in Van Horn in September. I'll be hunting with my .500 and that thing is a real pain to take off and on for a trip to town.

That's why I said 9/1/16 in my post, not 9/1/15.

Cheers!

[TVGuy]

I'm with Annoyed Man. 95% is better than nothing. The vast majority of CHL holders won't be practicing OC in metropolitan areas where the ammendment opposition comes from, but I anticipate seeing a lot of OC on opening day of dove season on 9/1/16 out in the rural area restaurants between morning and afternoon hunts! Get the law on the books, and fix it down the road.

Now, just get the darn thing to the Governor!

Cheers!

If a ton of folks carry on opening day of dove season, 9/1/15, there will likely be a few arrests and/or citations. The law won't take effect until 01/01/16.

I'm a little bummed about that. I'm elk hunting in Van Horn in September. I'll be hunting with my .500 and that thing is a real pain to take off and on for a trip to town.

He said 9/1/16.

Secondly, OC is legal when performing hunting activities already.

Edit: I see your point about trip to town

[canvasbck]

Dang, yall are quick! In the time it took to edit my post, two people called me out for misreading the date!

[Scott Farkus]

I think an argument is something like:

Government gives Taxpayer dollar grants for research and stuff, to "Private" schools

Students are given taxpayer funded grants, to give to "private" schools

At what point, how many public tax dollars must be given before the public paying gets a say in what goes on there?

These are not Mom & Pop "private" grocery stores that aren't getting public taxpayer money ... we are talking about millions & millions & millions of public tax dollars pouring into those "private" colleges.
================

That's an argument that can be made, but not right now.

[mr1337]

Personally ... as long as it is decriminalized everywhere, I don't care.
They can just make "Rules" like Virginia Tech had
see & notice Bradford's reasoning in the true event 1 year before the massacre at Virginia Tech, where carrying was legal, but rules against it
http://www.roanoke.com/webmin/opinion/u ... e526f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just get it passed decriminalizing campus carry on campuses, they can opt out by making "rules" and I'm fine with that, Rules make people feel good like those gunbuster signs which ostensibly don't allow Beretta M9s,If we have to go slow, ok, but

for goodness sakes get the right to defend yourself decriminalized,

it's ridiculous that it is a criminal offense to try to keep your life no matter where you are.

Such a powerful statement:

I would also like to point out that when I mentioned to a professor that I would feel safer with my gun, this is what she said to me, "I would feel safer if you had your gun."

[ScooterSissy]

If you support the passage of OC then the amendment becomes a problem for YOU because as we have learned it will not pass with the amendment.
I think that we forget that it took many sessions to get where we are with CHL and it may take many sessions to get where we want to be. But one thing has held true throughout, the all or nothing approach has never worked in our favor.

In my opinion, if we have a majority of Republicans in both sides of the Texas legislature, and they won't pass a bill that contains an amendment articulating and codifying a known 4th amendment issue; then we have some of the wrong R's in office.

And maybe that is the case....... but, that is the legislature we have to work with. And with all due respect, you're still willing to sacrifice HB 910 because it's not ideologically pure enough, and then gamble that next session, after the bad taste left in legislators mouths from this session, that you can get an ideologically pure bill passed then? That's just not a realistic appraisal.

Oh no, not my point at all. I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

[PBratton]

I'm with the "take what we can get" crowd.

I've been in the crowd since I got married 37 years ago...

[arthurcw]

I'm with the "take what we can get" crowd.

I've been in the crowd since I got married 37 years ago...

someone's couch must be comfy. Or their SO doesn't read the forum.

[JollyHappyDad]

I just read a blog article on TTAG (by one of their more reputable contributors) that claims the conference committee did not have the authority to remove the amendment (authority is limited to reconciling differences between bills), the article claims that a vote(s) has to be taken to authorize them to take that action, before it can go back for a vote. Been a long time since high school civics, anybody know this for sure?

[ELB]

I just read a blog article on TTAG (by one of their more reputable contributors) that claims the conference committee did not have the authority to remove the amendment (authority is limited to reconciling differences between bills), the article claims that a vote(s) has to be taken to authorize them to take that action, before it can go back for a vote. Been a long time since high school civics, anybody know this for sure?

As I wrote earlier, I'm betting that the conference committee took the position that the parts for the bills that were in conflict were the Huffines and Dutton amendments, so removing them both = reconciling the differences.

The committee noted this might be stretching a tad, but in their eyes, the rules say it is up to the presiding officer to determine this.

From the conference committee report:

{The conference committee may have exceeded the limitations
imposed on its jurisdiction, but only the presiding officer can
make the final determination on this issue.}

I am assuming that would be Lt Gov Patrick and Speaker Straus, unless they assign someone else to preside when HB910 is considered.

Thus if the presiding officers are ok with the deletion of the amendments, then the only vote required is a concurrence vote.

[Ruark]

I think it is important to get beyond decriminalizing campus carry. It actually needs to be implemented in enough buildings with classrooms in order to give the lie to the opponents' wild claims about frat boy shoot-outs during finals week.

Yes, but I think a BIG factor here, psychologically, is that it's stuck with the label "campus carry" which logically means, to most people "carrying on campus." This is NOT the case; it's ALREADY legal to carry on campus. SB11 simply expands this to allow CHL holders to carry inside buildings ("premises"). So if, say, a graduate student wants to CCW for protection when walking to that dark, distant parking lot or garage after a night class (and many graduate classes are at night), he can do so. But the erroneous perception that it means "carrying on campus" has led to all kinds of silly, irrelevant speechmaking about "our children running around campus with guns," etc. It probably would be an enormous help if this bill had evolved using some word besides "campus."

[J.R.@A&M]

I think it is important to get beyond decriminalizing campus carry. It actually needs to be implemented in enough buildings with classrooms in order to give the lie to the opponents' wild claims about frat boy shoot-outs during finals week.

Yes, but I think a BIG factor here, psychologically, is that it's stuck with the label "campus carry" which logically means, to most people "carrying on campus." This is NOT the case; it's ALREADY legal to carry on campus. SB11 simply expands this to allow CHL holders to carry inside buildings ("premises"). So if, say, a graduate student wants to CCW for protection when walking to that dark, distant parking lot or garage after a night class (and many graduate classes are at night), he can do so. But the erroneous perception that it means "carrying on campus" has led to all kinds of silly, irrelevant speechmaking about "our children running around campus with guns," etc. It probably would be an enormous help if this bill had evolved using some word besides "campus."

Right, I could go take a stroll outside right now and carry (walk from building to my car, get armed, take a walk, return to car, disarm, and return to the building). But the graduate student in your example cannot effectively be armed in her walk from a night class to the car, because she currently has nowhere to legally stash the firearm while she is in class.

That's why I think it is important to break through the actual arbitrary barrier of a campus building (or many buildings). That will enable us to say, "Look, we've been carrying in classroom buildings now for X years, and no wild, wild west."