TexasCHLforum.com

The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.

You can read the engrossed bill as it came from the Senate (PDF format) here:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00905E.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To watch what they did you can go the to video archive site of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and click on the meeting for yesterday, 5-16-11. You can do this here:

http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... session=82" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Advance the timer to 9.45 minutes where they begin discussion of SB905. The feed times out at about one and a half minutes, but just keep track of where you are on the timeline, restart and advance to where you left off.

I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED!!!!
DAMN THE TORPEDOES, REVERSE COURSE!!

NO MORE PARTIAL MEASURES...ALL OR NOTHING!!

I now suggest that we contact our legislators and urge them to STOP SB905 with or without amendments. If everyone cannot carry almost everywhere, let NO ONE carry anywhere. ALL OR NOTHING!

Let's also urge the legislators to STOP the Employer Parking Lot bill too. It is unacceptable that those in the oil refining/chemical plant industry should be denied the right to have their weapons in their vehicles. If it is not good for all of us, then by gosh, none of us should participate. ALL OR NOTHING!

Campus Carry, heck NO!. I think we should not accept that only some of us would be able to carry our weapons on campus. If the folks at the private institutions or those with teaching hospitals cannot carry then it would be patently unfair for others to be permitted to do so until all of us can do it. ALL OR NOTHING!

In fact, I think it would only show the conviction of our beliefs for us to actively lobby the legislature to right some of the injustices of the past. We must persuade them to renounce and repeal the laws which permitted us to carry (without 30.06) in churches, amusement parks, hospitals, and meetings of governmental bodies. Additionally, we should have them include the government building provision in the repeal. It can only be right and good that with the force of our ideas we make them see that until we can carry everywhere, we cannot, in good conscience carry anywhere regarding these locations. ALL OR NOTHING!

I have become so convinced of the correctness of our principals on this matter that we cannot fail to have them really force their hand. I propose that we free ourselves from ALL hypocrisy. It is fundamentally unconstitutional that we should have our right of self defense regulated and taxed by the State. Why should we have to even take the training class. It infringes on our rights of self actualization and we cannot permit this sad state of affairs to exist. These facts are all the more egregious considering the fact that we cannot all carry all the time and everywhere. There can be no room for compromise.

We must DEMAND that the legislature immediately, in this session, strike from the books ALL vestiges of the entire existing CHL law. We should then require them to replace it with "Constitutional Carry". We must all be allowed to carry everywhere, in any manner, at any time what ever we want and until they see fit to recognize the true and just nature of that position WE SHALL ACCEPT NOTHING SHORT OF THAT PRINCIPLED POSITION. WE ARE ALL CITIZENS WITH THE COURAGE AND STEADFASTNESS OF OUR POSITION. ALL OR NOTHING!!

I have decided that I am going to cut up my CHL tonight. And I am mailing it to my Representative and Senator...half each. I know that many of you are with me on this and I would be happy to repost the names and addresses of all our representatives.

COME ON ALL CHL'ERS LET'S GET THIS BANDWAGON ROLLING When they see nearly 500,000 cut up CHL's come back in the mail they will know that they have fouled up and will surely be convinced by our actions. Saddle up!

Jeez, don't ya just hate an convert?

PEOPLE, THIS IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY If we fail to support this foot in the door opportunity, we do so at our own peril. There are a LOT of folks who could immediately benefit from this if it passes. Like the parking lot bill, it doesn't do everything for every one of us, but it does a lot for many of us without doing harm to any of us.

mgood wrote:

blue wrote:goose.. gander..

Do we disregard if we are NOT on 3rd renewal yet? (Semi serious)

--FLUSH the abomination. PERIOD!

An all-or-nothing approach is not going to win us much.
By getting more and more CHLs into more and more places, allows us to demonstrate that we are not a threat to the public safety. That allows us to take more and more territory.
Eventually I'd like to see any adult who can legally own a firearm be able to legally carry those firearms, concealed or openly, with no need for a government issued license, just about anywhere a LEO may carry his firearms. But that ain't gonna happen this session. Baby steps will get us there.

As mgood said, the all or nothing approach will only get us a whole lot of 'nothing ' and a rare and tiny amount of 'all'. If we had taken that approach in 1995, we would still be behind California on this issue...as well as a lot of other states which have followed our lead on concealed carry.

terryg wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

blue wrote:goose.. gander..

Do we disregard if we are NOT on 3rd renewal yet? (Semi serious)

--FLUSH the abomination. PERIOD!

We get this through for anyone on their third renewal or later this time, and I bet next time we can get it down to anyone on their first renewal. It's like the current campus carry bill not covering private schools or teaching hospitals--it's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for future sessions.

I agree. I didn't mean to sound so negative - I was just wondering why they picked 3 - thats a lot of years.

Again, in the 1995 bill, if we had not accepted the carry restrictions in churches, govt. meetings, hospitals, and all the other locations, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ENACTED. Again, we would still be behind California.

I would be willing to bet money, something I hold pretty dear, that the "3rd Renewal" provision was market tested and found to be the minimum which would be accepted by the other members. The members of House and Senate can say to themselves and any objecting constituents, and there will be some, and to the media that they were 'responsible' in that they limited their actions to include CHL'ers who have, for AT LEAST A DECADE, demonstrated a high level of responsibility with a concealed handgun. Being able to say something like this gives them the political cover which some of them will need.

austinrealtor wrote:Folks, just THINK of the political ramifications of this for all those Senators who originally voted FOR the bill but now may want to vote AGAINST this amendment? Try explaining that one to your constituents. It's one thing to say you voted for SB905 but against SB354 or SB321 because while they're all gun-related they are separate bills. But how would someone like Hinojosa defend voting FOR SB905 but against this amendment? This is one of those game-changing amendments that is going to force some legislators to think very hard and could wake up the sleeping lemmings who are middle of the road on this issue - like the mainstream media.

Perhaps I'm being a bit naive, but anyone who voted for SB 905 and then votes against this amendment should be lambasted by more than just us "gun nuts".

COMMITTEEiiSUBSTITUTE
SENATE BILL 905 ON SECOND READING
Senator Patrick moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for
consideration CSSBi905 at this time on its second reading:
CSSB 905, Relating to the application of certain concealed handgun license laws
to statewide elected officials, certain current and former members of the legislature,
and certain federal and state employees.
The motion prevailed by the following vote:iiYeasi25, Naysi6.
Yeas:iiCarona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar,
Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti,
Van de Putte, Watson, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.Nays:iiBirdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, Wentworth.
The bill was read second time and was passed to engrossment by the following
vote:iiYeasi25, Naysi6.ii(Same as previous roll call)
COMMITTEEiiSUBSTITUTE
SENATE BILL 905 ON THIRD READING
Senator Patrick moved that Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule
requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that CSSBi905 be
placed on its third reading and final passage.
The motion prevailed by the following vote:iiYeasi25, Naysi6.
Yeas:iiCarona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar,
Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti,
VanideiPutte, Watson, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
Nays:iiBirdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, Wentworth.
Monday, May 9, 2011 SENATE JOURNAL 2077
The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote:iiYeasi25,
Naysi6.ii(Same as previous roll call)

I think the number of Senators voting FOR it will actually increase with the amendment. Senators Birdwell and Wentworth actually voted against it BECAUSE of their principled stand that it should apply to everyone, and not just the specified officials. I admire that. Third renewal is not 'everyone' but it certainly is much more inclusive that the original.

Full Disclosure, if the amendment survives, I will benefit, however, I have two CHL daughters who will not, yet. So I do have skin in this game on both sides.

Support it now, get the foot in the door and we can extend it further later. This can be a sea change event.


Scheduled for a public hearing in House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Tuesday, 5-17-2011.