Return to “SB11 & HB910 This week....”
Unfortunately, sometimes when the folks "pushing" get "90% of what they want", nothing further gets done. That leaves the 10% out in the cold.v7a wrote:Sure, but not signing a bill that's 90% of what you wanted is silly.RHenriksen wrote:'Not sign' <> 'veto'
Not only that, but I think some of us forget how "proactive" we were in college days. Imagine a the blowback when a group of students at UT Austin realize that the the admins at Texas A&M take the view that "our students are responsible and mature enough to handle concealed carry in buildings", but UT Austin admins don't feel that way about theirs...jmra wrote:That's my thought process. I could see students taking legal action.Vol Texan wrote:True that. Because this is stated in the bill (as opposed to the legislative intent), could the courts also use this as a basis if a student feels they have been effectively banned?ScooterSissy wrote:I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?
I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?
I agree with one small caveat - I don't think the will of the the few thousand law enforcement officers and officials should have been held in higher regard than that of 800,000+ CHL holders.The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.ScooterSissy wrote:....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.
Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?
I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.
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.The Annoyed Man wrote: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.ScooterSissy wrote: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.jmra wrote: 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.jmra wrote: 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.
Federal law isn't explicit, but a district court ruled that it's prohibited. My best guess is that some in LE would prefer it still be a somewhat gray area open to interpretation (and other rulings), rather than codified in Texas law.Overthehill wrote:Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.
That's what was discussed. They would have to post.C-dub wrote:On the off chance that campus carry does pass and a school does make any of their buildings off limits, how will anyone know a particular building is off limits? Will they have to also post 30.06 sign(s)?
Thank you (I think). Any policeman that can't figure out a way to engage a suspicious subject without demanding papers, and either affirm to negate his suspicions needs more training (I THINK that's what you were alluding to).viking1000 wrote:As a former police officer, I can assure you what you just heard was not correct !
Thought that passed through my head. If there had been time, it would have been nice to hear someone counter that those victims would have been better off had they been allowed to protect themselves.J.R.@A&M wrote:Ironically, she described them as victims of campus violence. Another reason I'd prefer the choice to be armed in (and on the way into) my campus building.ScooterSissy wrote:So this lady is listing names of victims of violence so they can be "remembered", but she can't pronounce their names. What an honor, I'm sure.