TexasCHLforum.com

Aggie_engr wrote:

K5GU wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:

K5GU wrote:I agree. And I was confused about the quote, "...when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference...". Bonnen voted Nay to concur, not Nay to send it into conference.

You're right about his vote, but the effect of voting nay to concur is to send the bill to conference. Another way you can read Rick's post is "you voted nay to concur which sent the bill to conference."

Exactly what I was trying to say. Bonnen did not vote nay to send it to conference, which is the same as saying he voted "yes" to send it to conference, eh?

I think we're saying the same thing!

Aggie_engr wrote:

K5GU wrote:I agree. And I was confused about the quote, "...when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference...". Bonnen voted Nay to concur, not Nay to send it into conference.

You're right about his vote, but the effect of voting nay to concur is to send the bill to conference. Another way you can read Rick's post is "you voted nay to concur which sent the bill to conference."

Aggie_engr wrote:

Rick Harris wrote:My reply:Rick Harris: Dennis , the Dutton /Huffines Amendment would simply removed any gray area about stopping someone from being stopped by an overzealous LEO. You and I both know that probable cause trumps everything else . At that point any law enforcement officer can ask you anything. As for you changing your vote, you voted for 910 to send it to the Senate and when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference. At this late date will it even make it back to the two chambers ? If it dies in committee or Senator Ellis is given a chance to filibuster that is tantamount to killing it. Having said all that, I've been watching you live as Speaker Pro Tem, and for what it's worth I'm proud to say I knew you when ! I hope there's something working that you can't share to get 910 done !

I have to completely agree with you Rick. From an outsiders viewpoint looking in, a vote yesterday to not concur with the senate amendment was essentially a vote to send HB910 to its death. Politicians can tout technicalities all day, it's what they are good at but I'm tired of beating around this bush. I could care less if the Huffines amendment stays or goes, but to vote not to concur when there is literally a three word difference from what the house already voted overwhelmingly to pass, is in my opinion a cop out to retain the maximum amount of votes as they can try to say they supported 2A rights and keep the law enforcement endorsement.

Rick Harris wrote:I recieved this Facebook reply from Dennis Bonnen this morning. I should say that I've known Dennis personally since he first ran for the House. He took over the seat my father held for 6 terms.

Dennis Bonnen: Rick Harris and Jenni Goff, I make no apologies for working with and supporting our law enforcement in passing Open Carry legislation that not only protects our gun rights but also protects those men and women who selflessly put their lives on the line every day to ensure our safety. Rick Harris, you should know better than most that I did not reverse my vote on HB 910, so please do not mislead Texas citizens. A vote to send a bill to conference committee is not, and never has been, a vote against a bill. It is a regular part of the legislative process the provides one last opportunity to make sure we are passing an effective law that is in the best interest of all Texans.

My reply:Rick Harris: Dennis , the Dutton /Huffines Amendment would simply removed any gray area about stopping someone from being stopped by an overzealous LEO. You and I both know that probable cause trumps everything else . At that point any law enforcement officer can ask you anything. As for you changing your vote, you voted for 910 to send it to the Senate and when it came back for concurrence you voted nay to send it to conference. At this late date will it even make it back to the two chambers ? If it dies in committee or Senator Ellis is given a chance to filibuster that is tantamount to killing it. Having said all that, I've been watching you live as Speaker Pro Tem, and for what it's worth I'm proud to say I knew you when ! I hope there's something working that you can't share to get 910 done !

thatguy wrote:What am I missing, doesn't a police officer have to have probable cause to ID someone anyway? This amendment doesn't seem to change how things will be handled by the police departments anyway.