TexasCHLforum.com

I think the concern is that because "belt holster" is not defined, that anti-gun police and prosecutors may try to say that holsters which don't directly attach to a belt, such as paddle holsters and iwb holsters, are not "belt" holsters.

hansdedrich wrote:So what you are saying is that - You can carry your holstered gun anywhere and any way you want to carry it - concealed, open, in the belt, out of the belt, on your ankle, around your neck, around your thigh, around your chest, under your shirt, outside of your shirt, half outside of your shirt, 3'4 outside your shirt, half concealed, half open, anyway you prefer as long as it is holstered and not Mexican carry?

No, only "belt or shoulder" if open. No ankle carry.

Bladed wrote:

CJD wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Log says substitute bill was voted favorably. Wouldn't that be the SB 17 version?

Probably

No, the substituted bill would be CSHB 910. SB 17 has not yet been referred to committee in the House.

I took the post to mean wording, not literally sb17. Sorry if I was misleading.

TVGuy wrote:Log says substitute bill was voted favorably. Wouldn't that be the SB 17 version?

Probably

Bladed wrote:

CJD wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

CJD wrote:

v7a wrote:

The committee did not vote on a separate bill allowing concealed handguns in university dorms, classrooms and other buildings.

Phillips, chairman of the committee, said the panel will wait for the Senate’s campus-carry bill to be referred to the panel. Senate Bill 11, which would allow private colleges to opt out, was approved last week on a party-line Senate vote.

Any speculation on why they would wait for SB11 but not SB17?

Perhaps they substituted the same language.

They received SB 17 on 3/18 and SB 11 on 3/20. Guessing next meeting.

If they substituted SB17 language into HB910, I believe they wouldn't need to do anything with SB17 since they are companions.

The House must vote on SB 17, not HB 910, in order for open carry to pass. If SB 17 (but not HB 910) passes in the Senate and HB 910 (but not SB 17) passes in the House, open carry fails to pass.

The only advantage to the two bills being companion bills is that SB 17 can take HB 910's place on the House calendar if SB 17 is also passed out of the Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee and if HB 910 is already scheduled for a vote.

Appreciate the info. Maybe they're trying to get it through calendars while they wait for sb17 to go through homeland security.

TVGuy wrote:

CJD wrote:

v7a wrote:

The committee did not vote on a separate bill allowing concealed handguns in university dorms, classrooms and other buildings.

Phillips, chairman of the committee, said the panel will wait for the Senate’s campus-carry bill to be referred to the panel. Senate Bill 11, which would allow private colleges to opt out, was approved last week on a party-line Senate vote.

Any speculation on why they would wait for SB11 but not SB17?

Perhaps they substituted the same language.

They received SB 17 on 3/18 and SB 11 on 3/20. Guessing next meeting.

If they substituted SB17 language into HB910, I believe they wouldn't need to do anything with SB17 since they are companions.

v7a wrote:

The committee did not vote on a separate bill allowing concealed handguns in university dorms, classrooms and other buildings.

Phillips, chairman of the committee, said the panel will wait for the Senate’s campus-carry bill to be referred to the panel. Senate Bill 11, which would allow private colleges to opt out, was approved last week on a party-line Senate vote.

Any speculation on why they would wait for SB11 but not SB17?

Perhaps they substituted the same language.

"Reported favorably as substituted"

TVGuy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TVGuy wrote:did anyone catch the first 30-45 minutes of the Homeland Security committee meeting. Was any action taken on 910? (or any other pending bills for that matter)

Testimony was taken, but the Bill was not voted. All bills in that committee are "left pending" until the next committee hearing. Then some bills are voted on, some are not. Those that are not are either undergoing changes, or are dead.

Chas.

Testimony was taken in the last meeting, so should we be expecting a vote today?

Some believe they are waiting for SB17 to be assigned to the committee so they can substitute it in and simplify the process. This cannot happen yet as SB17 has not been assigned to committee.

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.

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

v7a wrote:Surprised how strongly Representative Nevarez pushed back on the witness who claimed (referencing this article) that Campus Carry will take 40 gazillion dollars away from cancer research. While he's obviously still going to vote against, I have some newfound respect for him.

Are you sure that was Navarez? I didn't think he was in the room at the time.

Not sure from the video, but I thought it was his voice. I might be mistaken though.

It was Nevarez if you're talking about the testimony mentioning MD Anderson's cost of $20 m for gun safes. Please correct me but doesn't the existing laws prohibit CHL carry in a hospital? So, what's logical about a hospital buying gun safes?

Only if they post 30.06, or are an institution of higher education.