TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

timtheteacher wrote:ELIGIBLE AT 2:40 PM MAY 26, 2015:

HB 910 Phillips / Flynn / White, James / Riddle / Guillen / et al.


Could be soon......

Taypo wrote:

safety1 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.

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.

joe817 wrote:When HB 910 comes to the floor tomorrow for concurence vote it is a simple yea or nay vote. What determines its passage. IE: simple majority, plurality, 3/5 or what?

You see, I have to have SOMETHING to worry about tonight!

gljjt wrote:

safety1 wrote:

gljjt wrote:I am completely confused. Can someone summarize what is required to get HB910 passed, from its current status, and a guess as to how likely that is to happen.

Thanks!!!

A concurrence vote in the House. Up or down vote, yay or nay. Then to the Govs. desk.
If the House does not concur, it would go to a Conference Committee.

Depends who you ask on the "how likely" part.
There is a wide variety of opinions right here on the forum.

Thanks. The Huffines thing through me for a loop. So both Dutton and Huffines amendment's are out and that is what the Senate approved? What are the odds we will see that up/down concurrence vote? I gotta believe if it makes it to a vote, it will pass.

CJD wrote:HB910 now on the "Items Eligible for Consideration" calendar for May 26 2:40 pm.

ELB wrote:The Senate and the House can grump all they want about Huffine and his inept stubborness, but if OC and Campus Carry don't pass, the blame will be on Republicans, particularly Republican leadership, not just one Senator. They have had plenty of time this session to pass both of these bills, they trumpeted support early on, passed nearly identical bills...then let them sit while they squabbled. The reason we are up against the end-of-session wall now is not because of Dutton or Huffines.

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?

Grisham et al claimed early on that many of the Republicans in both chambers were squishy on the 2A -- it sounds like there is a good chance they will prove him right, and this is a stick that he will beat them with long and loud. (BTW, this is not something I look forward too, I did not support OCT and OCTCs antics).

Republican legislators better realize, they all own this, however it turns out. It doesn't matter how many other lesser gun bills pass, OC and Campus Carry are the battle flags, and if they fall it is a major defeat for 2A supporters and a major win for MDA and their ilk.

gljjt wrote:I am completely confused. Can someone summarize what is required to get HB910 passed, from its current status, and a guess as to how likely that is to happen.

Thanks!!!

TXBO wrote:The main problem with Huffines/Dutton amendment is that some in power view it as precedent to other profiling legislation.

safety1 wrote:

Tracker wrote:If Huffines was acting as a periha why hold the other reps accountable and kill one or the other of both bills?

Let's hope they don't kill either bill over it, but on that thought. Why not pass them and if the amendment proves problematic remove it in the
future. We always talk about taking baby steps so lets take this giant step, if it don't work...remove it!
I don't have statists nor can I quote other state law but I'm sure other states have already dealt with a Huffines like amend.

Tracker wrote:If Huffines was acting as a periha why hold the other reps accountable and kill one or the other of both bills?

Maxwell wrote:I just logged on. has HB910 come up yet?