TexasCHLforum.com

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

So because LEOs as a whole perceived this as a slap in the face, the bill goes down?
They (LEOs) mainly in the larger cities didn't support HB910 anyway.

Right now I'm mad at everything in the universe, so I'm pretty much out of patience.

With that said, stop putting words in my mouth!!! I pointed out why the Dutton amendment has become a problem; I didn't say that HB910 was dead.

Chas.

Look, if someone doesn't know how to quote, then don't do it. It makes it appear that some Members have posted something they did not.

Chas.

XinTX wrote:

ELB wrote: And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?

I have been a strong proponent for the Dutton/Huffines amendment from the get go. Were it not there, several cities could manufacture a defacto ban on OC via "license checks". And while the committee was correct in stating that the amendment merely restated the summation of case law, someone would have had the burden of going through the judicial proceedings in order to halt harassment of OC'ers via a series of "license checks". This amendment will hopefully remove that step in the process. Now at least the legislative intent is so stated and some of the bed wetter CLEO's can't try to wiggle around it claiming ambiguity in the law.

Not only is the Amendment unnecessary, it is ineffective and has placed two bills in jeopardy. As Huffines in-artfully but repeatedly stated during debate, the amendment (as well as the constitution) prevents detaining someone solely because they are wearing a handgun. A LEO needs something more, but it certainly isn't probable cause as he stated. Reasonable suspicion is the requirement and it would take very little more to meet that standard. Any furtive movement by the person openly-carrying a handgun would be sufficient. Avoiding eye contact, looking nervous, knowing that the person doesn't have a license because they have a misdemeanor conviction , appearing to be intoxicated, and countless other factors that could be present would justify the stop.

While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

juno106 wrote:My understanding, and even though I was at the capitol on an almost daily basis last week I certainly can be mistaken, is that the ONLY reason SB11 was not ALSO attached to HB910, was that the House was going to honor a commitment to pass SB11 as a standalone.

You are absolutely right.

Chas.

juno106 wrote:And, all the "doom and gloom" you are espousing would not have happened, if Huffines hadn't put forth his amendment?!

Really?!

Huffman's stripping of the Dutton amendment in Committee, prior to going to the full Senate, also would have forced... [insert quote of doom & gloom]

You are assuming that the Dutton amendment had no impact on the support of HB910 with that provision. I can't say more at this point, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to get the picture. It's understandable that people would make this assumption, but that doesn't change the facts.

The Huffines amendment has put two Bills in jeopardy.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

It was an irresponsible gamble that gained nothing and could have cost much more. It still may have, but only time will tell. He did it to gain notoriety for himself so he can run for Congress. That's not supporting gun owners, it's furthering his own interest.

Chas.

Glockster wrote:Now, for the love of something, with all that has happened, where exactly does that leave things?

If the Huffines amendment was identical to the language in the House, then it's over and it goes to the Governor.

I still can't give any details, but I will say that campus-carry was very much a part of the proceedings. It has publicly disclosed that the Senate and House had cut a deal on HB910 and SB11, so I'm not disclosing anything confidential. The details are something else. Call your Representative and ask them to support SB11 and oppose amendments not acceptable to the author. I hope the deal is still in place.

Chas.

Thank goodness he moved to suspend the 3 day rule!!! This avoids a potential problem I was really sweating.

Chas.

Just shut up and vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Folks, if two F-rated Democrats (Ellis and West) are in favor of the Amendment, that should tell you something. They aren't worried about racial profiling, they have a plan.

Chas.

What can they possibly do? Is the amendment identical to Dutton?

I'm not putting that on a public forum.

Chas.

Folks, if two F-rated Democrats (Ellis and West) are in favor of the Amendment, that should tell you something. They aren't worried about racial profiling, they have a plan.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

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.

But if it passes tonight and goes straight to the Governor, it's worth it.

That's like saying it's okay to draw out your family's life savings and bet all of it on one hand of Blackjack, because it will be worth it if you win. Risking the loss of both open-carry and campus-carry to get an amendment that will have absolutely no impact in the real world is a very poor bet.

Chas.

KC5AV wrote:Wow. She pulled her amendment to the amendment. I guess it wasn't germane.

Or something else.

Chas.

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.

Jasonw560 wrote:

troglodyte wrote:What is the meaning of what is happening now? Everyone up at the front.

Argumenting germaneness to the amendment to the amendment.

It wouldn't be germane in the House, but the Senate has a very loose interpretation.

Chas.