Too close for comfort

[CWOOD]

As Charles has updated us and as a TSRA email alert has stated, the HB284/SB378 will be debated in the House on Monday. Joe Driver will move that the House accept SB378 in lieu of HB284 (they are identical) and also move that after debate the House vote to pass it, which will almost certainly happen. This is great!

The too close for comfort that I mentioned in my heading referrs to the fact that, while this might all have come to pass anyway, it could have been much slower, and less certain.

The House Jurisprudence Committee voted 5-3 on the floor to pas the SB378 out of committee to the floor, which is what sets up this process. This is the same vote margin with which HB284 was voted favorably out of committee.

Imagine the different scenario had this House committee been 4-4 rather than 5-3...only one vote difference. The committee substitute for bill HB284 might have looked much different, the speed of the process out of committee might have been much longer, and the substitution 'on the floor' at an impromptu committee meeting might never have happened if the Anti's had just ONE MORE VOTE on the committee.

I guess I have taken up way too much space and used way too many words suggesting that we cannot let our guard down on electing folks to the Legislature who recognize the Second Ammendment. Event though this measure probably would have passed eventually, with a modest change in the committee membership, it could have taken much longer and looked much different.

"Stepping down from soapbox now....sorry"

[cjlandry]

So does this mean that we'll receive the much revered "F" brady rating?

[Skiprr]

I guess I have taken up way too much space and used way too many words suggesting that we cannot let our guard down on electing folks to the Legislature who recognize the Second Ammendment.

Sir, your soapbox should be polished mahogany.

A sincere "thank you."

[Charles L. Cotton]

So does this mean that we'll receive the much revered "F" brady rating?

At least a D-.

Chas.

[jimlongley]

We were already a D- maybe this will get us down where we belong.

Here's the brady bunch's assessment of TX for 2005, know thine enemy.

D-
Texas Receives a "D-" on Laws Shielding Families From Gun Violence
Legislation Grade Comments
Juvenile Possession Law F NONE
Juvenile Sale/Transfer Law A- YES, must be 18 for all firearms
Child Access Prevention Law B+ YES, under 17
Gun Safety Locks and Safer Design Standards F NONE
Allow Cities To Regulate Guns (Non-Preempt) F NO
Secondary "Private" Sales Background Checks F NO
Carrying Concealed Weapons Law D No police discretion, training required, reciprocity, strong background check

Extra Credit Demerits
Defeated NRA effort to force businesses to allow loaded guns in the workplace. Prohibits lawsuits against gun industry.

[txinvestigator]

As Charles has updated us and as a TSRA email alert has stated, the HB284/SB378 will be debated in the House on Monday. Joe Driver will move that the House accept SB378 in lieu of HB284 (they are identical) and also move that after debate the House vote to pass it, which will almost certainly happen. "

I cannot memorize all of the bill numbers, could you help an old dude out and give me a couple of words that explain those bills?

[gigag04]

As Charles has updated us and as a TSRA email alert has stated, the HB284/SB378 will be debated in the House on Monday. Joe Driver will move that the House accept SB378 in lieu of HB284 (they are identical) and also move that after debate the House vote to pass it, which will almost certainly happen. "

I cannot memorize all of the bill numbers, could you help an old dude out and give me a couple of words that explain those bills?

+1, I too am curious.

[Mithras61]

As Charles has updated us and as a TSRA email alert has stated, the HB284/SB378 will be debated in the House on Monday. Joe Driver will move that the House accept SB378 in lieu of HB284 (they are identical) and also move that after debate the House vote to pass it, which will almost certainly happen. "

I cannot memorize all of the bill numbers, could you help an old dude out and give me a couple of words that explain those bills?

+1, I too am curious.

These are the "Castle Doctrine" bills. They would codify (among other things) that if you are in your home or somewhere you have a legal right to be that there is no retreat required in the face of force/deadly force, and also provide immunity from civil lawsuit for a shooting, provided that there are a couple of condition met (like that you are justified in the shooting from a criminal standpoint, and that you didn't provoke the use of force/deadly force).

SB378 is the Senate version and HB 284 is the House version. They are currently identical. SB 378 has been passed 30-0 and HB 284 is scheduled for debate on Monday. Since they are identical, Rep. Driver (the author of HB 284) intends to suggest that SB 378 be substituted as is and that a vote be held without allowing amendments so that they can skip the House/Senate conference committee and sent the bill directly to the Governor's desk for his signature.

[txinvestigator]

As Charles has updated us and as a TSRA email alert has stated, the HB284/SB378 will be debated in the House on Monday. Joe Driver will move that the House accept SB378 in lieu of HB284 (they are identical) and also move that after debate the House vote to pass it, which will almost certainly happen. "

I cannot memorize all of the bill numbers, could you help an old dude out and give me a couple of words that explain those bills?

+1, I too am curious.

These are the "Castle Doctrine" bills. They would codify (among other things) that if you are in your home or somewhere you have a legal right to be that there is no retreat required in the face of force/deadly force, and also provide immunity from civil lawsuit for a shooting, provided that there are a couple of condition met (like that you are justified in the shooting from a criminal standpoint, and that you didn't provoke the use of force/deadly force).

SB378 is the Senate version and HB 284 is the House version. They are currently identical. SB 378 has been passed 30-0 and HB 284 is scheduled for debate on Monday. Since they are identical, Rep. Driver (the author of HB 284) intends to suggest that SB 378 be substituted as is and that a vote be held without allowing amendments so that they can skip the House/Senate conference committee and sent the bill directly to the Governor's desk for his signature.

I know what the bills ARE, I just don't remember the bill numbers. When posting about them, I think it would be helpful to post something like, "SB378 (Castle Doctrine) has become law!

Or "SBXXX (one gun a month) was heavily defeated".

[Mithras61]

I know what the bills ARE, I just don't remember the bill numbers. When posting about them, I think it would be helpful to post something like, "SB378 (Castle Doctrine) has become law!

Or "SBXXX (one gun a month) was heavily defeated".

I figured that if you weren't sure by the bill number, others more shy than you may not really understand what "Castle Doctrine" meant, and so provided a summary.

'sides, you could always just ignore the stuff you already know...

[Charles L. Cotton]

SB378/HB284 are the Castle Doctrine bills.

SB378 is scheduled for debate on the House floor on Monday, March 19th. This will be the second reading. It will be up for third and final reading/vote on Tuesday, March 20th.

I erroneously posted earlier that final passage would be on Monday. That's when all the bogus debates and arguments against it will occur, so Tuesday will be uneventful, except for passage.

Chas.

[GlockenHammer]

Here is a great status of all gun-related bills and their numbers. Charles personally keeps this list updated by editing it appropriately.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... php?t=4353