TexasCHLforum.com

Jason K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There are two independent questions/issues: 1) is the gun concealed; and if not 2) is the gun in a shoulder or belt holster? The answer to the concealed question will be no different after passage of open-carry than it has been since 1995. (See below.) The shoulder holster question is easy to answer, as is the belt holster question. If it is attached to or secured by the belt in any manner, then it's a belt holster. This means OWB belt holster, IWB holsters (regardless of placement, i.e. appendix, 3 o'clock, etc.) and even drop-leg holsters (God forbid!!) that are attached to a belt. Whether a gun is concealed is not determined by the type of holster used.

So....I could actually use an ankle holster as long as there was a dangle-thingy that attached to my belt, right?....

Bladed wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:So how does it work when each chamber is working on companion bills? The Homeland Security Committee already heard testimony on the companion bills of those that just passed from the Senate to the House?

If a bill is on the House or Senate calendar when its companion bill gets passed out of the opposite chamber; that companion bill can--after being voted out of committee--be called up in place of the bill on the calendar. Basically, the companion bill takes the place of the bill already scheduled for a vote, but it still has to be approved by the second chamber's committee.

If a House bill is on the House calendar when a Senate bill is passed by the Senate, it still has to be passed by the House committee to which it's assigned, but it doesn't have to be scheduled by Calendars. The House author can simply call up the Senate companion bill when the House reaches his bill on the Calendar.

joe817 wrote:

CJD wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I see the Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to meet again next Tuesday, 3/24. Are we expecting a vote on OC and Campus Carry bill in that meeting?

If the Senate versions of these 2 bills have been received by the House, then do they go to Calendars? If so, does it matter whether these 2 get voted on?

If not, would these go to Homeland Security & Public Safety? If this is the case, could the House versions be substituted for the Senate versions, which would simplify the process if the House doesn't approve any amendments?

Question not necessarily directed at TVGuy, just stemming off your post.

Basically, the process starts allllll over again, just like they started out in the Senate. There's a 1st reading on the House Floor, where it is assigned a committee(Homeland Security). They will have a public hearing to discuss, listen to testimony, etc. then vote on it. It's THEN passed to Calendars Committee, where it's assigned a calendar. When it reaches the House Floor there's a 2nd reading, and if passed goes to the 3rd reading, where it'll be debated and voted on. If passed without amendments, the bill(s) are "enrolled" meaning it's then signed by both the Lt.Governor & Speaker of the House. THEN it goes to the Governor for signing. That is IF there's NO amendments from the House. If there are amendments, it's kicked back over to the Senate. If the Senate concurs, then the bill is "enrolled"(again). And the final process repeats itself.

There's a really nifty flowchart that shows the stages of a bill as it flows through the legislative process. I've found it very useful:

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's on P. 20 of 73 in the .pdf file.

Ruark wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: I'm floored that the person doesn't have to have any expertise on the subject, just fill out a card and there you go. Yay for an open democratic process and all, but I really don't see how that helps when the bulk of the regular, law-abiding citizenry are at work, instead of in Austin ranting. I'd rather be represented by people like Mr. Cotton, for instance, or perhaps someone like John Lott, folks who have expertise on the subject and can speak in a rational, articulate manner on the topic.

I agree. There's a HUGE amount of precious time wasted just sitting there listening to idiots who know utterly nothing factual, even at the most fundamental level, about the issues. They just want to feel important because they're "appearing in front of the committee" and listen to themselves talk. Look at court cases, where they have "expert witnesses" with real knowledge and expertise help the court make good decisions. Why can't they take the same approach to bill discussions?

I mean, good grief, has ANYBODY gotten up there and calmly, clearly pointed out that carrying a concealed firearm on a college campus is ALREADY legal with a CHL, and we're just talking about extending that to include carrying inside buildings? Think of the UT student and has to walk to and from a night class from one of those UT parking lots a mile away, or one of those mammoth UT parking garages. To avoid carrying the gun inside the building, they have to leave it in the car, thus rendering themselves defenseless. Has ANYBODY gotten up there and calmly, clearly pointed out that 75% of the college students in Texas are too young to own a handgun or get a CHL in the first place?

Nooooo. Instead, they just sit there for hours, days, weeks, listening to silly speeches that, for all the validity of their content, might as well be about little green men from Mars.

Jason K wrote:

tlt wrote: Like everyone else, he has his own agenda. It would be very unprofessional for anyone to seek him out and say anything or post negative reviews regarding his testimony. Everyone who puts themselves out there to testify should be able to do so without any harassment. There are also lots of folks who disagree with OC supporters, particularly on this subject, folks should be on their best behavior and not hooting and hollering in the gallery for example.

I've met a ton of folks who do seek out additional training on their own if they feel they need it. So, I don't think it needs to be forced in to form of more requirements, that's just my opinion. He probably sees people that scare him, and need more training, and that's his opinion.

Why not? Shouldn't someone who is considering use of his services know what kind of person he/she is doing business with? I'm not suggesting that he be harassed or slandered.....just state the fact of his testimony and public position.

Caveat emptor.....

RPBrown wrote:Did they vote it out of committee or was this just public hearing?