HB 910 (OC) Committee debate - Now

[Shadow41]

I will put it this way, if it did come back I would not rant and rave about it and attend the class. If it came down to a negotiation point to get OC passed then I would not voice opposition although I may not like it. There is always give an take on such an issue even though we might not like certain aspects of it. We all know that most CHL holders do not stay up to date on the current laws, there are instructors still telling students of off limit places that have not been in effect for years. I feel that the members and frequent visitors to this site are the exception rather than the rule.....

I've had my CHL for less than a year now. I frequented this forum for a while before I even took my CHL class. Although I've rarely posted, I'm on the forum virtually daily just reading and staying up to date (as well as the entertainment value). I might not prefer the idea of having to re-take a class for each renewal, but if that's a give in order for it to pass then so be it.

As a previous poster said I don't personally intend to OC if it passes, I just like the idea of not having to be concerned about an accidental exposure if or when it occurs. My feeling is that you'll see numerous people OC if it takes affect just for the shear reason that it passed and they can. After the "newness" wears off I'd suspect most will go back to being concealed, and just not be concerned if it became exposed. Just my opinion.

[TVGuy]

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?

[CJD]

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.

[RPBrown]

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?

I just checked the schedule for this committee on 3/24 and it is not on the schedule.

[TVGuy]

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?

I just checked the schedule for this committee on 3/24 and it is not on the schedule.

I think that list is only new items. I could be wrong but the top line says "pending items and:" then lists the other bills.

[ELB]

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?

I just checked the schedule for this committee on 3/24 and it is not on the schedule.

I think that list is only new items. I could be wrong but the top line says "pending items and:" then lists the other bills.

Yes, the pending items includes bills previously left pending. On 3/17 the committee hearing notice listed only HB910 and HB937, which were being looked at for the first time, but during the meeting they handled five other bills that had previously been considered. Some got voted out of committee, some were left pending again.

[The Annoyed Man]

While we're at it, why not require periodic refreshers on election law before one can get their voter registration? Why not require periodic refreshers on political science or world history before one can read a news source or comment on an issue on an Internet forum?

This is just too delicious to pass up. We all know that "they" would argue loudly and longly that voting is a right, and forcing someone to take periodic refresher course would infringe on that right as well as be racist (because minorities are somehow not as capable of taking care of themselves as majorities are.)

I'll leave it to the forum members to extend the argument to gun rights.

"They" go beyond thinking voting is a right. "They" think it should be a legal obligation, like taxes, and punishable for refusing to vote out of conscience:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... formative/

WASHINGTON – They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier for people to vote.

{——SNIP——}

At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.

OUR PRESIDENT thinks this is a good idea. (Well, at least, the nation's president.....not mine. I declared him an enemy of the state 6 years ago.)

By making it a compulsory obligation, they remove its status as a "right". And rights are two-sided. To have a right also implies a choice to exercise it, or to not exercise it—however one's conscience dictates. So called "liberals" would like to take your liberty away if you exercise your right of conscience to not vote.

[joe817]

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.

[TexasCajun]

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.

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?

[joe817]

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.

[Bladed]

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.

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.

[TVGuy]

By my count there are now 80 authors/co-authors on HB 910. Growing by the week.

[joe817]

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.

[steveincowtown]

By my count there are now 80 authors/co-authors on HB 910. Growing by the week.

I personally believe the reps are becoming co authors is to show Straus that play time is over.

[TVGuy]

By my count there are now 80 authors/co-authors on HB 910. Growing by the week.

I personally believe the reps are becoming co authors is to show Straus that play time is over.

Agreed!