TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:And the way to do that is to read "How A Bill Becomes Law". It's extremely helpful when trying to sort out these confusing details. It can be found here:

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading it, the article gives an EXTREMELY helpful flowchart of how a bill winds its way through the Legislature. It can be found on P. 11 of the article OR P. 19 of 73, if you go by the .pdf format.

Deltaboy wrote:This is going to drive me MAD.

Deltaboy wrote:This is going to drive me MAD.

Scott Farkus wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Someone please explain to me how suspension of the 3 day rule means that this bill has been passed. I thought it had only passed on to a 3rd reading.

And they immediately voted on it again, and it passed but the Dem's didn't vote for it that time.

Something's not right here.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

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.

I find it odd that you vilify him and give Huffman a pass. My understanding is that the Huffine amendment is identical to Dutton amendment. If this is true, Ellison will not get another chance to kill it. It goes straight to Abbott.

Huffines caused this problem. I'm not at all happy with Huffman, but this Bill would have passed this morning had he not pulled this garbage.

Chas.

TXBO 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.

Appears to me that Huffman is doing the grandstanding now.

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

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

That's fair. I'd expect her to fight for her convictions. Guess you would also have to admire Huffines for fighting for his conviction?

I expect him to fight for his convictions, same as Huffman. The difference is this, she's as sharp as a tack, and his lights are on but nobody's home. I don't admire her point, I admire her effectiveness at driving it home, while he sounds like a mumbling bumbling idiot. I admire what he is doing less, because he is doing an extremely poor job of defending his amendment.

But that's not all.......

He IS doing a very good job of delaying the passage of a good bill, which threatens said passage, and if this bill goes down because of his obstinate insistence on defending his bill with a poorly prepared defense, then I'll not forgive him for screwing all of us.

Follow me for a minute...... What he is doing is the equivalent of insisting on "comprehensive carry reform", when it would be far more effective to get the existing bill passed, and then amend the law down the road. We have examples of this very thing in the existing law. It used to be a requirement to show both TDL and CHL to an LEO when asked for ID while carrying, punishable by possible revocation of your CHL for failure to show the CHL. That has changed. As the law currently stands, the requirement is still there, but there are no consequences for failure to comply.

That is ALL that needs to happen here. GET THIS BILL PASSED........AS IS....... and then later, down the road, amend the law with something like the Huffines amendment. What really pisses me off about him is that he is putting it ALL at risk, over something that he is woefully UNPREPARED to defend. If he screws this up and BH 910 does not pass because of his delays, it's not HIM that will pay the price, it is all CHL holders who thought they might want to open carry once in a while.

That is unpardonably stupid. So no, I guess I don't really admire what he's doing.

I see it differently. It was Huffman that insisted on removing a overwhelmingly bipartisan amendment in the first place. This wouldn't be left in the hands of a car dealer to defend if she had left it alone.

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

Chas.

The Count wrote:Sorry for the question, but can anyone post the link to the video feed. My history clears after 3 days and it's been longer than that since I've watched or read the hb910 thread.

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

That's fair. I'd expect her to fight for her convictions. Guess you would also have to admire Huffines for fighting for his conviction?

Stripes Dude wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:He's clearly outclassed. Not sure how he even got elected at this point - public speaking is not his strong suit.

Needs to go back to selling cars and developing real estate and leave the politics for the people who know what they are talking about.

Or at least TALKED to people "in the know" to prepare for the questions.

It's inexcusable. He doesn't even know the current CHL statutes or MPA.