TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks for the heads up! I wonder if they will broadcast those committee meetings, now that they will start getting busy?

Rrash wrote:Can we just pull the holster talk into oncoming traffic, leave it there, and move on yet?

There's a dedicated sub-forum dedicated to holsters in the Day-To-Day section of the forum. I believe ALL discussions related to holsters should be done there; eliminate the baiting questions, and discuss only items relevant to legislative actions being discussed in this section of the forum.

And I am unanimous in my decision. (even to the point of asking the Mods to lock this thread if these silly debates continue)

TAM, is that the mayor of Kermit?

Anybody besides me think that this thread has turned into a circular discussion, not to dissimilar to a circular firing squad?

hansdedrich wrote:You may be absolutely correct. The dangers of carrying a gun and having one around the house may not be worth it unless you live on a working ranch.

Wellllll, if you want to rid yourself of the dangers of carrying a gun and having one around your house, ahhh, what kind are they and how much do you want for them?

mojo84 wrote:Who assigns the bills to the committees?

I'll go out on a limb and say the Speaker of the House assigns a bill to committee when first introduced.....but don't hold me to that.

Bladed wrote:This is not accurate. The House is not required to hold public hearings on bills and does not do so on bills that are substantially similar to bills on which they've already held hearings. The Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee will vote on SB 17 and shelve HB 910.

They do have to wait for SB 17 to go through first reading and be assigned to the committee, though. If that doesn't happen before Tuesday, I suspect they'll wait and vote on SB 17 at their next meeting. The alternative would be to vote on HB 910 at this meeting and then vote on SB 17 at the next meeting, which is kind of pointless.

Not arguing with you, but that contradicts the flow chart on P.20 of the link posted above. But that's a minor point, I'm not willing to debate.

TexasCajun wrote:So how does it work when each chamber is working on companion bills? The Homeland Security Committee already heard testimony on the companion bills of those that just passed from the Senate to the House?

I have no idea! I'm still learning as I go, and I've got a LONG way to go! I've asked myself that same question a dozen times. I' sure that link above describes the process, but I haven't taken the time to fully read through it.

Maybe somebody who does know will chime in shortly.

CJD wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I see the Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to meet again next Tuesday, 3/24. Are we expecting a vote on OC and Campus Carry bill in that meeting?

If the Senate versions of these 2 bills have been received by the House, then do they go to Calendars? If so, does it matter whether these 2 get voted on?

If not, would these go to Homeland Security & Public Safety? If this is the case, could the House versions be substituted for the Senate versions, which would simplify the process if the House doesn't approve any amendments?

Question not necessarily directed at TVGuy, just stemming off your post.

Basically, the process starts allllll over again, just like they started out in the Senate. There's a 1st reading on the House Floor, where it is assigned a committee(Homeland Security). They will have a public hearing to discuss, listen to testimony, etc. then vote on it. It's THEN passed to Calendars Committee, where it's assigned a calendar. When it reaches the House Floor there's a 2nd reading, and if passed goes to the 3rd reading, where it'll be debated and voted on. If passed without amendments, the bill(s) are "enrolled" meaning it's then signed by both the Lt.Governor & Speaker of the House. THEN it goes to the Governor for signing. That is IF there's NO amendments from the House. If there are amendments, it's kicked back over to the Senate. If the Senate concurs, then the bill is "enrolled"(again). And the final process repeats itself.

There's a really nifty flowchart that shows the stages of a bill as it flows through the legislative process. I've found it very useful:

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

It's on P. 20 of 73 in the .pdf file.

TVGuy wrote:

joe817 wrote:Anyone getting the feeling that the committee chairman is leaning in favor of this bill, while trying to be objective?

He's an author of the bill.

Obviously, I don't follow this committee very closely. Thanks.

Anyone getting the feeling that the committee chairman is leaning in favor of this bill, while trying to be objective?

timtheteacher wrote:She is back pedaling faster than a circus clown.... She stretched that further than a 600 pound woman in a girdle

Committee members are destroying her argument. I mean tearing it up. BTW, she's with that MAG's group, I think.

The witnesses testifying are testifying on subjects not related at all to HB910 or HB937(campus carry). One guy was talking about unlicensed OC, and went on for 5 minutes. Same ole OCTC garbage: "if you don't pass UOC, we will sue.

K.Mooneyham wrote:I've got what may be a dumb question but here goes anyway: how do they pick who is allowed to speak to the committee? I mean, Alice Tripp, of course she should. And as much as I cannot stand them, the Mothers group is a "public advocacy group", so I can see that, too. But where do they get some of these people?

Actually the process is pretty straight forward. You fill in a 'request to speak card' and turn it in, and then wait your turn. Anybody can. You just have to get to Austin to speak. I don't think there's a "selection process".