Return to “CALL TO ACTION: SB905”
Then it's dead. From the Dates of Interest:RHenriksen wrote:Certainly no sign of activity on it here.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 (135th day)
Last day for house to consider local and consent senate bills on second reading or any senate bills or joint resolutions on third reading
[House Rule 8, Sec. 13(c)]
Yeah, I was just noticing that this morning. That's the Aliseda amendment that was passed in committee 5/16; we don't know what the amendment was when they reconsidered it in committee 5/19.Paragrouper wrote:I read through the House Committee Report and page three contains this amendment
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT NO. 1
SECTION ____. Amend S.B. 905 (Engrossed) with the following:
(1)On page 1 line 18 insert "or" after ";".
(2)On page 1 line 20 strike ";"after "States attorney" and replace it with "."
(3)Strike Page 1 line 21 through page 2 line 11.
Aliseda
This amendment removes elected officials and noncommissioned DPS employees. I don't see a second committee report. Am I looking in the wrong place?
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB905
Either that, or find 5 representatives to stand in opposition:Coogan wrote:Since it is on the Local and Consent calendar, I don't think any amendments can be offered. Someone would have to talk for 10 minutes when it is brought up in the House, which would kill it from the Local and Consent calendar, and it would have to go back to calendars to be rescheduled. At least, I think this is how it would work.
House Rule 6, Section 14.
Procedure for Consideration of Local, Consent, and
Resolutions Calendars — During the consideration of a local, consent, and
resolutions calendar set by the Committee on Local and Consent Calendars the
following procedures shall be observed:
(1) The chair shall allow the sponsor of each bill or resolution three
minutes to explain the measure, and the time shall not be extended except by
unanimous consent of the house. This rule shall have precedence over all other
rules limiting time for debate.
(2) If it develops that any bill or resolution on a local, consent, and
resolutions calendar is to be contested on the fl oor of the house, the chair shall
withdraw the bill or resolution from further consideration and remove it from
the calendar.
(3) Any bill or resolution on a local, consent, and resolutions calendar
shall be considered contested if notice is given by fi ve or more members that
they intend to oppose the bill or resolution, either by a raising of hands or the
delivery of written notice to the chair.
(4) Any bill or resolution on a local, consent, and resolutions calendar
shall be considered contested if debate exceeds 10 minutes. The chair shall
strictly enforce this time limit and automatically withdraw the bill from further
consideration if the time limit herein imposed is exceeded.
(5) Any bill or resolution on a local, consent, and resolutions calendar
that is not reached for floor consideration because of the expiration of the
calendar day period for consideration established by Section 13 of this rule
shall carry over onto the next local, consent, and resolutions calendar. Bills
or resolutions that carry over must appear in the same relative order as on
the calendar on which the bills or resolutions initially appeared, and bills or
resolutions originally from older calendars must appear before those originally
from more recent calendars.
I'm not sure it would be considered germane, judging from what Charles was saying in the SB1581 thread.Jasonw560 wrote:So, if it makes to a vote, will Kleinschmidt still offer his amendment? Or is it gutted to much?
They do in Texas. See my post above.TexasBill wrote:Frankly, I have never understood why judges didn't have the same carry privileges as peace officers.
Except the existing law also has a §46.15 exception for judges, DA's, ADA's, etc. with a CHL, which allows them to carry anywhere a LEO can. Unless the amendment did more than remove elected officials and civilian DPS employees, the USAs and AUSAs wouldn't be able to do the same.apostate wrote:The amendment by Rep. Aliseda (?) limits it to USA/AUSA to mirror the existing exemption for DA/ADA/etc.
Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) Sections 46.02 and 46.03 do not apply to:
(1) peace officers or special investigators under Article 2.122, Code of Criminal Procedure
(4) a judge or justice of a federal court, the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(5) an honorably retired peace officer or federal criminal investigator
(6) a district attorney, criminal district attorney, county attorney, or municipal attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
(7) an assistant district attorney, assistant criminal district attorney, or assistant county attorney who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;
I expect that he has had a CHL for a long time, so he may be covered if the Kleinschmidt amendment goes through.JJVP wrote:CWOOD wrote:The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.
Does that mean that Perry would not be exempt since he is an elected official? Yeah, he'll sign that, Not.
According to the website it is scheduled to be heard today, but according to the committee schedule they heard it yesterday. Regardless, it hasn't been reported as recieved in Calendars.artx wrote:Has the committee hearing happened yet? Believe that was scheduled for today. You won't see it go to calenders until after the hearing. The status will change to notify the committee report sent to calendars etc.Jasonw560 wrote:Calendars met about 2 minutes ago. So that means they're out now.
Wonder if they'll pull SB905 out for a vote?
It'll have to wait until it comes to the floor for the amendment to be offered, since SB905 is still in committee and Rep. Kleinschmidt isn't on the committee that's hearing it.JJVP wrote:Where is this Kleinschmidt amendment? Other than Charles original post, I have not seen any amendments to the bill. Is this a "proposed" amendment that might or might not be offered? And what if it is offered and voted down, then what?
I'm not sure that's true, with the possible exception of government meetings. The rest of the places listed (at least those not owned by government entities) can still be validly posted with 30.06 signs, and the proposed bill only provides a defense to prosecution to §46.035, not §30.06. I'd think they could still be prosecuted for trespass if they carried past a valid sign at one of the places in question, same as anywhere else.JJVP wrote:Yet the bill exempts churches (46.035 b(6). What this bill will do, as filed, is that legislators, etc, will be able ignore a 30.06 sign at a hospital, amusement park, church and government meetings. The rest of us, will be arrested.mgood wrote:Church carry is ok.JJVP wrote:. . . Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's.The Annoyed Man wrote:Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. . . .TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church. . .
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.
We get this through for anyone on their third renewal or later this time, and I bet next time we can get it down to anyone on their first renewal. It's like the current campus carry bill not covering private schools or teaching hospitals--it's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for future sessions.blue wrote:goose.. gander..
Do we disregard if we are NOT on 3rd renewal yet? (Semi serious)
--FLUSH the abomination. PERIOD!
14 years and change, since the initial license is until the birthday 4 years after the date of issuance and each renewal is good for 5 years. I think the only people who currently would be on their third renewal or later would be those who have held a CHL since the first year it was issued or shortly thereafter (1996==>1st renewal in 2000==>2nd renewal in 2005==>3rd renewal in 2010).terryg wrote:Wow, third renewals. How many years would that be?
