TexasCHLforum.com

J.R.@A&M wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

joe817 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Senate appointed conference committee members for HB910

All I caught on HB910 were Estes & Huffines.

They also selected conference committee members for SB11. I only remember Birdwell & Huffman.

SB11 was Birdwell, Huffman, Schwertner, and Hinojosa . Huffman, as we know, is chair of the relevant committee for this legislation and a CHL supporter. Schwertner represents TAMU and is a CHL supporter. Hinojosa has a previous history of support forsecond amendment issues, although not that I recall for campus carry.

Edited to add Burton.

I went back to the record and found that Hinojosa voted against SB11

http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/ ... PDF#page=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, we only need 3 out of 5 votes for each chamber.

Our aces: Birdwell, Huffman, Schwertner

Did you happen to catch the name of the last committee member?

Also, is SB11 now also in danger of being filibustered by Ellis & West?

Burton.

Good, another ace. Now we wait to see who the House committee members are.

J.R.@A&M wrote:

joe817 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:Senate appointed conference committee members for HB910

All I caught on HB910 were Estes & Huffines.

They also selected conference committee members for SB11. I only remember Birdwell & Huffman.

SB11 was Birdwell, Huffman, Schwertner, and Hinojosa . Huffman, as we know, is chair of the relevant committee for this legislation and a CHL supporter. Schwertner represents TAMU and is a CHL supporter. Hinojosa has a previous history of support forsecond amendment issues, although not that I recall for campus carry.

Edited to add Burton.

I went back to the record and found that Hinojosa voted against SB11

http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/ ... PDF#page=4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, we only need 3 out of 5 votes for each chamber.

Our aces: Birdwell, Huffman, Schwertner

Did you happen to catch the name of the last committee member?

Also, is SB11 now also in danger of being filibustered by Ellis & West?

Senate appointed conference committee members for HB910

Motion to not concur prevails on SB11

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/ho ... er-premium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the 10-member conference committee fails to come to an agreement, he said, the House will accept the Huffines amendment rather than kill the bill all together.

This sentence gives me hope.

"I have no doubt that at the end of the day there will be an open carry bill passed in the 84th session," said bill sponsor Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman.

This one too.

shootnfish wrote:I found this information about conference committees in the
Guide to Texas Legislative Information at http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/gtli/legproc ... oncom.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

" A conference committee’s charge is limited to reconciling differences between the two chambers, and the committee, unless so directed, may not alter, amend, or omit text that is not in disagreement. Nor may the committee add text on any matter that is not in disagreement or that is not included in either version of the bill in question."

So what can the conference committee legitimately do, when there are not any substantive differences between the bills?

I'm assuming this means that the committee must choose between the Dutton amendment and the Huffines amendment.

I don't see how that is going to help any more than just concurring the Huffines amendment if this is the case.

I found it interesting that so many changed their votes between the Dutton amendment and the concurrence vote. The political backlash from LEO groups must have been immense.

With or without the amendment, police still cannot detain a person without RS, so I wish they would have just done what gets HB910 passed. If that means go without the amendment, we still have the court cases to back us up.