TexasCHLforum.com

tx85 wrote:Conservative House members are planning to torpedo more than 100 bills today:

Earlier in the evening, members of the self-labeled Freedom Caucus signaled their intent to do damage with an impromptu news conference where they announced they would use a procedural maneuver to kill more than 100 bills set for Friday morning.

They said the time had come to strike back against House leaders after what they're calling a session of routine obstruction of key anti-abortion, 2nd Amendment and property rights bills.

If I recall correctly, this is analagous to how Rick Perry got the legislatures attention when he was a brand-new governor. During his first legislative session as governor The legislature was giving short shrift to his priorities,so when the session was over he vetoed something like 80+ bills. Since the session was over there was no chance to override his vetoes.

Cooperation is good, but it has to be from both sides to be "cooperation." Sometimes you got to use a 2 x 4 to get somebody's attention.

jason812 wrote:

allisji wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Good article at Breitbart Texas about HB1911.

Texas Police Chiefs Use ‘Racial Coding’ to Oppose Gun Bill, Says Black State Rep.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/ ... state-rep/

He makes some good points about the police chiefs opposition gun legislation. But I don't understand why inject racism allegations into it. I don't know Rep. White. Just found out that he's black. But I am assuming that the writer probably asked some leading questions about whether or not him being Black may have some kind of impact. And when the writer heard something that he could use to attempt to link it to racism then he ran with it. So the writer implies that the rep was subtly accusing the Police Chiefs of being racist, when really it was the writer's goal all along to link the subject to racism. Why not just stick to the facts about gun control and crime, etc. which can actually help to bolster the argument instead of making some obscure accusations of racism....

I actually think its kind of funny playing the race card back against the left who try to use it for everything.

He did make a good argument about the cheifs and their opposition.

Nearly every gun control law in the US has historical roots in preventing black people from having guns. Some were explicitly written that way. After the Civil War, the laws were tidied up a bit to appear racially neutral, but not enforced that way until very recently...if then.

ScottDLS wrote:The language is in 46.15 where it says that if you qualify to unlicensed carry you have an exception (defense) to 46.02 which is what makes it illegal to carry in a place that sells alcohol...

Just caught on to that when you were posting, thanks.

Just starting to wade into the verbiage of HB1911 now that the Committee Substitute is out.

I see language removing the requirement for signs at retailers who sell alcohol not for consumption on the premises, i.e. the Blue Sign I guess.

The sign says it is illegal to carry a weapon on the premises without a license.

Does removal of the requirement for a sign also remove the law against carrying a weapon on the premises?

I don't see language doing that (and am not sure where that language is anyway). Usually there is a law that says "X is illegal" and a separate law requiring a sign telling you that "X is illegal." So removing the requirement for the sign doesn't mean "X" is not illegal, it just means there doesn't have to be a sign. Kind of like when the 51% rule meant you were committing a felony if you carried in a bar even if there wasn't a 51% sign.

Hmm. Maybe it is the last line of 46.02?:

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.