TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:Can't wait to see what shenanigans Stickland pulls today.

He's like the court jester or the comedic relief in a tv drama

TVGuy wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Could someone explain amendment 9? http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910

It says "adopted" and reads that a city of over 750,000 can ban open carry.

The amendment to amendment was adopted. The amendment itself was tabled.

Thanks. I was also wondering what that meant. So the amendment to the amendment was passed, but since the underlying amendment was tabled, the A to the A is moot, basically?

I'll admit to being a little confused and also horrified that the House had gone for a patchwork of open carry laws starting with a population of 750k. Glad to see I was mistaken in my understanding

CJD wrote:

dru wrote:

CJD wrote:

K5GU wrote:

CJD wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Oooo, secret Democrat meeting. Wonder what they have up their sleeves.

Vote for the campus carry amendment so the Senate will kill it!

Huh?

The more things that get attached to the bill, the less likely the Senate will concur.

That doesn't make sense to me though. The senate has already passed its own campus carry and open carry bill. I don't see why the Senate wouldn't concur with something the house did when they passed a functionally equivalent piece of legislation barely a month ago

I think this is a different version though.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure of the key differences between this and SB 11

CJD wrote:

K5GU wrote:

CJD wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Oooo, secret Democrat meeting. Wonder what they have up their sleeves.

Vote for the campus carry amendment so the Senate will kill it!

Huh?

The more things that get attached to the bill, the less likely the Senate will concur.

That doesn't make sense to me though. The senate has already passed its own campus carry and open carry bill. I don't see why the Senate wouldn't concur with something the house did when they passed a functionally equivalent piece of legislation barely a month ago

CrimsonSoul wrote:What does amendment tabled mean anyway?

It means the amendment is effectively dead

So far, amendments 2-6 are all just shining examples of weapons grade stupidity. Who comes up with this crap? Badges and liability insurance, LMAO

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Roger Howard wrote:Amandment 3 tabled

This is the result of a LOT of work!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chas.

Thanks for everything you guys do to help advance pro-2A legislation!

I could handle the gutting of 30.06 if the criminal penalties were also removed. It would essentially become like the gunbuster signs in other states that don't carry the force of law. At least that way if you "violated" the sign, you wouldn't have to worry about a misdeameanor on your record