TexasCHLforum.com

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

A clean bill most have been part of the deal.....and that didn't happen so SB11 is a toss up....just my guess???
Thanks for all your hard work Charles.

croc870 wrote:https://twitter.com/lmcgaughy/status/601889103483969536

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

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.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, is this Huffines any relation to the car dealer Huffines? If so, remind me to never buy from them.

CJD wrote:

safety1 wrote:

CJD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

I think it's going to be making UCW, or illegally carrying firearm, a felony, so as to dissuade people from violating it.

Would this still be a concurrence vote in the house, or to the governors desk from here. It's changing the bill with her amendment

If amendment 9 passes, as is, and the bill passes, it goes straight to the governor. If amendment 9 fails, or is amendment by an amendment and then passes along with 910, then it goes to the House for a concurrence vote.

rfs2005 wrote:If she was wanting to increase the penalties, wouldn't that have to be a another amendment, and not an amendment to the amendment? I guess we shall see in "five" minutes.

CJD wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

K5GU wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

The same as it is today, right? (If I'm interpreting your question correctly).

I'm no expert on MPA, but if I understood Huffman correctly, today an officer could pull over someone open carrying in their car, as that should be illegal either way (CHL must be concealed, MPA calls for concealed as well I believe). If Amendment 9 was attached and passed, police wouldn't know whether an open-carried gun in a car was done so legally (with CHL) or illegally (without CHL) because they wouldn't be allowed to pull the person over to check whether they had a CHL. Sorry if that's not very clear...

I don't want them to have this ability. Imagine how many times someone would get pulled over solely for open carrying.

K5GU wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

The same as it is today, right? (If I'm interpreting your question correctly).

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.