Search found 2 matches
Return to “Status of Campus Carry and Parking Lot (in layman's terms)”
- Wed May 25, 2011 9:08 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Status of Campus Carry and Parking Lot (in layman's terms)
- Replies: 96
- Views: 45770
Re: Status of Campus Carry and Parking Lot (in layman's term
Sorry, I guess I meant that there was more than adequate support in the House. My point was that incomprehensible rules like the Senate Blocker Bill requiring 2/3 vote was preventing the will of the majority from prevailing. The same thing applies in the House with the Calendars committee. Bottom line, we need to amend the Blocker Bill and we need a new Speaker of the House next session.
- Tue May 24, 2011 9:47 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Status of Campus Carry and Parking Lot (in layman's terms)
- Replies: 96
- Views: 45770
Re: Status of Campus Carry and Parking Lot (in layman's term
The root cause for losing the Campus Carry Bill is the archane "Blocker Bill" in the state Senate. This rule requires 2/3 vote to bring a bill to the floor for vote. In theory it protects the minority fROMm being railroaded. The first thing the Senate votes on each legislative session are the rules, to include the Blocker Bill.
When Senator Dan Patrick was first elected, he proposed eliminating the Blocker Bill. His vote was the only one in favor. This session he tried again to just lower that threshold to 60% of the Senate (same as required in US Senate to break a filibuster) instead of the 67%. Under the rules, Mario Gallegos was able to block the bill from coming to the floor for a vote. Had we had the 60%, the bill would have come to the floor, and would have passed. The bill has passed the House overwhelmingly so the bill would have gone to the Governor for his signature. Done deal.
When the bill was "killed" by the Blocker Bill, all the subsequent gimmicks (nice try though) just didn't work.
Contact your state Senators and ask them to amend the Blocker Bill next legislative session. A 60% rule will still "protect" the minority party from being railroaded.
When Senator Dan Patrick was first elected, he proposed eliminating the Blocker Bill. His vote was the only one in favor. This session he tried again to just lower that threshold to 60% of the Senate (same as required in US Senate to break a filibuster) instead of the 67%. Under the rules, Mario Gallegos was able to block the bill from coming to the floor for a vote. Had we had the 60%, the bill would have come to the floor, and would have passed. The bill has passed the House overwhelmingly so the bill would have gone to the Governor for his signature. Done deal.
When the bill was "killed" by the Blocker Bill, all the subsequent gimmicks (nice try though) just didn't work.
Contact your state Senators and ask them to amend the Blocker Bill next legislative session. A 60% rule will still "protect" the minority party from being railroaded.