SB11 & HB910 This week....

[mojo84]

Just dawned on me some of the reps that oppose to people approaching them in the capitol building to ask them questions and record their answers because it makes them feel threatened are some of the same ones that are against campus carry. Irony or hypocrisy?

[Ruark]

I think it is important to get beyond decriminalizing campus carry. It actually needs to be implemented in enough buildings with classrooms in order to give the lie to the opponents' wild claims about frat boy shoot-outs during finals week.

Yes, but I think a BIG factor here, psychologically, is that it's stuck with the label "campus carry" which logically means, to most people "carrying on campus." This is NOT the case; it's ALREADY legal to carry on campus. SB11 simply expands this to allow CHL holders to carry inside buildings ("premises"). So if, say, a graduate student wants to CCW for protection when walking to that dark, distant parking lot or garage after a night class (and many graduate classes are at night), he can do so. But the erroneous perception that it means "carrying on campus" has led to all kinds of silly, irrelevant speechmaking about "our children running around campus with guns," etc. It probably would be an enormous help if this bill had evolved using some word besides "campus."

Right, I could go take a stroll outside right now and carry (walk from building to my car, get armed, take a walk, return to car, disarm, and return to the building). But the graduate student in your example cannot effectively be armed in her walk from a night class to the car, because she currently has nowhere to legally stash the firearm while she is in class.

That's why I think it is important to break through the actual arbitrary barrier of a campus building (or many buildings). That will enable us to say, "Look, we've been carrying in classroom buildings now for X years, and no wild, wild west."

Exactly. I'm kinda surprised that during the SB 11 debate, at least one supporter didn't step up to the podium and say, "look, everybody, this is NOT ABOUT CARRYING ON CAMPUS!!!!!" Instead, we heard speech after speech after speech about "guns on campus."

[poppo]

Exactly. I'm kinda surprised that during the SB 11 debate, at least one supporter didn't step up to the podium and say, "look, everybody, this is NOT ABOUT CARRYING ON CAMPUS!!!!!" Instead, we heard speech after speech after speech about "guns on campus."

It was brought up. I don't recall by who, but it was mentioned several times that people can already carry outside of the buildings.

[mojo84]

I also know for a fact there are many guns already on campuses. That's why it is so hard to me to understand why so many are against those that have a chl carrying one concealed on campus.

They are already there!!!!!

[Ruark]

Exactly. I'm kinda surprised that during the SB 11 debate, at least one supporter didn't step up to the podium and say, "look, everybody, this is NOT ABOUT CARRYING ON CAMPUS!!!!!" Instead, we heard speech after speech after speech about "guns on campus."

It was brought up. I don't recall by who, but it was mentioned several times that people can already carry outside of the buildings.

I seem to remember it being offhandedly mentioned, but not really emphasized. I am astonished by the utter lack of public speaking skill of some of these legislators.

[The Annoyed Man]

....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

[RoyGBiv]

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

A groundswell of negative feedback from law enforcement between the day it was passed by the House (21-April) and the day it was received back from the Senate (25-May).

[K5GU]

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

A groundswell of negative feedback from law enforcement between the day it was passed by the House (21-April) and the day it was received back from the Senate (25-May).

Kinda like a "call to action". I'm sure they all did it while off duty, eh? I was shocked when I ran the numbers. 25 Dems and 39 Republicans flip flopping on the votes.

[TVGuy]

....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

[TrueFlog]

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

A groundswell of negative feedback from law enforcement between the day it was passed by the House (21-April) and the day it was received back from the Senate (25-May).

I believe Charles has indicated that the Dutton amendment was a surprise and was passed quickly without much consideration. The reps who voted for it then had no idea how upset it would make law enforcement. By the time it came back around in the form of the Huffines amendment, several days had passed - several days of bad PR by Stickland and opposition by a few vocal LEO's. That bad PR and opposition was enough to cause several reps to flip their votes. I don't agree with their decision - they represent the people, not law enforcement - but I do understand it.

Some people also think that they were trying to help Abbott and maybe even save the bill. Had the House concurred, Abbott would have been in a tough spot - veto the bill and anger the pro-gun crowd, or pass the bill and anger law enforcement. By not concurring, the House saved Abbott from having to make that choice. They also avoided the possibility that he might side with the LEO's and veto the bill, thus killing it altogether.

[RoyGBiv]

There's lots of head shaking to go around, but, IMO the single biggest facepalm goes to Senator Huffines for failing to Amend HB 910 to be EXACTLY, word-for-word, punctuation-for-punctuation, the same as the version received from the House. Major fail.

Hopefully it can still be salvaged.

[K5GU]

....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

You're probably correct. However if I was going to be alarmed in the Capitol buildings, it would be apprehension over who might be armed with a HIDDEN gun, not an openly visible gun in a holster.

[TVGuy]

....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

You're probably correct. However if I was going to be alarmed in the Capitol buildings, it would be apprehension over who might be armed with a HIDDEN gun, not an openly visible gun in a holster.

You can't get into the Capitol with a hidden gun if you don't have a CHL. That's the catch with this...

The amendment said they can't ask to see CHL solely for OC of handgun. If you're concealed carrying you have to go through the detectors or swipe CHL to get in.

With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

[74novaman]

There's lots of head shaking to go around, but, IMO the single biggest facepalm goes to Senator Huffines for failing to Amend HB 910 to be EXACTLY, word-for-word, punctuation-for-punctuation, the same as the version received from the House. Major fail.

Hopefully it can still be salvaged.

Fail, or intentional?

Looking forward to what leaks out about the session after the dust settles. It was a wild one.

[K5GU]

....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

You're probably correct. However if I was going to be alarmed in the Capitol buildings, it would be apprehension over who might be armed with a HIDDEN gun, not an openly visible gun in a holster.

You can't get into the Capitol with a hidden gun if you don't have a CHL. That's the catch with this...

The amendment said they can't ask to see CHL solely for OC of handgun. If you're concealed carrying you have to go through the detectors or swipe CHL to get in.

With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.