TexasCHLforum.com

TXBO wrote:I've noticed that Alice Trip has used the words "significantly similar" to describe the differences in wording of the HB 910 versions several times in the last 24 hours. Is there some significance to what actually happens to 910 next based on that? I'm still hearing multiple stories of what is needed next to get to Gov Abbott. Floor vote, author acceptance, concurrence?

safety1 wrote:The House will convene at 1:00pm today any chance HB910 comes up?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Senator Huffman was just asked by Senator West if she would withdraw her amendment if Senator Huffines would withdraw his amendment. She said yes.... if Huffines would withdraw his, she would withdraw hers. Under further questioning, she concedes that failure to withdraw both amendments would force the bill into conference with the house, and possibly kill the bill.

HB910 is a good bill, AS IS, without further amendments.

I cannot support what Huffines is doing......... NOT necessarily because he's wrong on the issue (Oklahoma has a similar law)...... but because his tactic is threatening to sink the whole thing, and THAT is inexcusable. If you don't like what I've just said, Senator ELLISON has spoken in favor of Huffman's amendment precisely because it will open up a chance for him to filibuster the bill late in the session and kill it.

This is what happens when tyros play with political dynamite....... and Huffines is a tyro.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.

Now that's just fantastic. You forget your wallet and now it's going to be a felony? (It's already a Class A.) Huffines is an idiot and he wants to run for Congress. He fits right in with OCT, Grisham, NAGR/Dudley Brown. Anti-gun Democrats are laughing their tails off.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

I surmise she is just trying to increase the penalty to persuade people from doing it, realizing this amendment might pass, JMHO

And if the House doesn't go along with it, and it very well may not, then we could be at an dead end just as we were last session when HB508 went down in flames.

People, I don't think anyone realizes just how urgent this situation is. If HB910 goes down, so does campus-carry. All because an idiot wants to grandstand.

Chas.

..Just as will be the candidates next time...

Not a single candidate lost reelection because HB508 went down. In fact, the man who caused it was elected Lt. Governor.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, is this Huffines any relation to the car dealer Huffines? If so, remind me to never buy from them.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.

Now that's just fantastic. You forget your wallet and now it's going to be a felony? (It's already a Class A.) Huffines is an idiot and he wants to run for Congress. He fits right in with OCT, Grisham, NAGR/Dudley Brown. Anti-gun Democrats are laughing their tails off.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

I surmise she is just trying to increase the penalty to persuade people from doing it, realizing this amendment might pass, JMHO

And if the House doesn't go along with it, and it very well may not, then we could be at an dead end just as we were last session when HB508 went down in flames.

People, I don't think anyone realizes just how urgent this situation is. If HB910 goes down, so does campus-carry. All because an idiot wants to grandstand.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:Don't they need to vote on Amendment 9 before addressing the amendment to the amendment??

No, the amendment to the amendment must be dealt with first.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.

Now that's just fantastic. You forget your wallet and now it's going to be a felony? (It's already a Class A.) Huffines is an idiot and he wants to run for Congress. He fits right in with OCT, Grisham, NAGR/Dudley Brown. Anti-gun Democrats are laughing their tails off.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

NorthTexas wrote:

K5GU wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

The same as it is today, right? (If I'm interpreting your question correctly).

I'm no expert on MPA, but if I understood Huffman correctly, today an officer could pull over someone open carrying in their car, as that should be illegal either way (CHL must be concealed, MPA calls for concealed as well I believe). If Amendment 9 was attached and passed, police wouldn't know whether an open-carried gun in a car was done so legally (with CHL) or illegally (without CHL) because they wouldn't be allowed to pull the person over to check whether they had a CHL. Sorry if that's not very clear...

A Texas Tribune article from earlier this afternoon stated that Huffman and other Republicans "viewed the amendment as back door effort to repeal handgun licensing requirements altogether." I think that's her bigger concern.