HB 910 Conference Committee

[chamberc]

In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

What movement have you seen?

[ScooterSissy]

In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

same here, while they might of had one I havent seen or heard of any that did or at least saying they did

If they did what does it matter???

What "matters" is the spread of (possibly) false information that they were CHL holders. I don't believe any where, or it would have already been plastered all over the news.

[TVGuy]

In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

What movement have you seen?

How is that relevant to the question being asked?

I second the question about CHL holders being part of the Waco fiasco. Additionally, membership in a street gang makes on ineligible to hold a CHL under current law.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm probably wrong but my best feeling to get it passed is that the conference committee cannot come to an agreement thus giving the House a second vote on it and hopefully it passes then. Cause if Senate gets to vote on it again I'm sure Ellis, West and others will do whatever they can to bust it out.

In the 35 years I've been a Second Amendment activist, I've never seen a gun bill go to conference where an agreement was not reached. (I've seen bills die because one body did not accept the conference committee report.) Therefore, I don't know what happens if that occurs. I was interested in the question yesterday as to whether the House could reconsider HB910 and concur with the Senate version, if the conference committee did not reach an agreement. I am troubled about the answer given.

The Guide to Texas Legislative Information quoted by PBR includes a phrase that I have always thought to be true though, as I noted, I've never been in a position to know firsthand. That phrase reads, " Failure of the conference committee to reach agreement kills the measure." I don't know if the House Rules prohibit reconsideration of a bill that has gone to conference and failed to achieve a resolution. The above-quoted phrase appears to support that theory. However, the phrase could also mean that if a conference committee fails to reach an agreement, the bill is essentially dead because there is no other avenue of resolution. I'm concerned at the lack of a statement in the narrative that the bill could be reconsidered by the body that failed to concur.

If there is a potential point-of-order in this situation, you can bet that Martinez-Fisher will assert it.

Chas.

[ScooterSissy]

In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

From the news. It has been reported that up to 75 % of the arrests did not have any prior criminal history. Additionally I have also seen a video interview where in it a member of one of the biker clubs (gangs) claims that he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL. I say claimed, because that is protect information and it won't be released. Whether it is true or not, it is the card law enforcement played to strike down HB 910. You've got to see that! In the house debate they did everything but spell it our for you by using key word after key word. Safety, tool box, hand cuff, protect ect...

Not having a criminal history does not give one a CHL automatically. A member of an MC saying "he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL" doesn't mean that any of them actually have one. Actually, according to the law, membership in the gang makes them ineligible. Of course, they could lie and still get one; but we have nothing that says that happened.

Yes, it's one of the "cards" used to strike down 910, which is exactly why spreading unsubstantiated rumors is a bad idea.

Unless there is a source given that says some actually had a CHL, what you are stating is speculation, and it's bad for us.

[TVGuy]

In Any case, all this circus tactics are uncalled for. The house should have voted yes and done with it. It is ridiculous to vote no for A couple words difference in text. This means that the House Amendment was a poison pill by the Republican House. After all, we are not that stupid.

Disgusting!

...Fast forward to Waco. Some of those guys were CHL holders...

Where did you get the information that some of those guys where CHL holders? This is the first time I've heard that from any source.

From the news. It has been reported that up to 75 % of the arrests did not have any prior criminal history. Additionally I have also seen a video interview where in it a member of one of the biker clubs (gangs) claims that he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL. I say claimed, because that is protect information and it won't be released. Whether it is true or not, it is the card law enforcement played to strike down HB 910. You've got to see that! In the house debate they did everything but spell it our for you by using key word after key word. Safety, tool box, hand cuff, protect ect...

Not having a criminal history does not give one a CHL automatically. A member of an MC saying "he recommends that any and all of his members who are eligible apply for and get a CHL" doesn't mean that any of them actually have one. Actually, according to the law, membership in the gang makes them ineligible. Of course, they could lie and still get one; but we have nothing that says that happened.

Yes, it's one of the "cards" used to strike down 910, which is exactly why spreading unsubstantiated rumors is a bad idea.

Unless there is a source given that says some actually had a CHL, what you are stating is speculation, and it's bad for us.

I could not agree more w/ SS.

PLEASE do not further the Anti 2A rhetoric by repeating unfounded, un-sourced garbage on the forum. They read this, as do legislators. This hurts our common cause.

[safety1]

This may be silly....but maybe the agreement that is reached is that they could not agree and request the re-concur vote?
Maybe I'm just being to hopeful

[NotRPB]

Rather than anyone insulting or threatening any legislator or anyone ...

I'd think it more important that legislators be aware of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
I certainly forgot this fact until this morning.
If people are wanting to contact their Reps/Senators, by Email, Fax. Phone, etc they might point out

PENALTY REDUCTION from Class A to Class C on 30.06 dies If HB910 dies
Don't kill it !!! #WhateverItTakes

[safety1]

Since this is a possibility, what procedural moves can be used to stop a filibuster, both chambers?

[safety1]

"During a filibuster, a senator is limited to topics relevant to the bill being discussed and cannot eat, drink or use the restroom during the speech. The rules also prohibit sitting or leaning on a desk or chair under any circumstances when the senator has the floor and is speaking on the bill or resolution.

Filibusters end either when the senator voluntarily yields the floor or after three violations of the rules for decorum and debate. After the third violation, the Senate can vote on a point of order, which if sustained would force the senator to yield the floor, according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas website."

I found the answer!

[sig-sog]

Any word or speculation when the conference committee will commence? Any words or comments from the senate about what happened last night?

[PBR]

"During a filibuster, a senator is limited to topics relevant to the bill being discussed and cannot eat, drink or use the restroom during the speech. The rules also prohibit sitting or leaning on a desk or chair under any circumstances when the senator has the floor and is speaking on the bill or resolution.

Filibusters end either when the senator voluntarily yields the floor or after three violations of the rules for decorum and debate. After the third violation, the Senate can vote on a point of order, which if sustained would force the senator to yield the floor, according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas website."

I found the answer!

well I'm not sure how it is run or done and this is probably not possible and / or stupid but what if someone that is for open carry gets up there and filibust up to the point where no time left but to vote and then steps down do they have to hear anyone else or since time is closing can they vote? sort of a reverse filibust I guess is what I'm asking, could it happen?

[Ruark]

Please tell me if I'm understand this correctly. I'm trying to tell some other people about it, and it's hard to do when you're not sure of what you're saying.

If the conference committee doesn't come to agreement, the bill dies. I think that's a given.

If/when the bill comes back out of conference with nothing changed, the House will vote on it again. Since they voted against concurrence the first time (that's what sent it to committee in the first place), many feel there's a slim chance they would change their minds and vote for the same bill they just voted against. Matter of opinion here. Some of those reps said they still support it, they just wanted to send it to committee first. Phillips seems to feel that it would pass if it went through a second time.

The real danger is in the Senate. If/when the bill comes out of the conference committee and anything IS changed (e.g. the amendment is removed), it will have to be passed in both the House and the Senate, where Ellis, West and others will filibuster it until it dies.

Do I understand it correctly?

Thanks.

[chamberc]

Please tell me if I'm understand this correctly. I'm trying to tell some other people about it, and it's hard to do when you're not sure of what you're saying.

If the conference committee doesn't come to agreement, the bill dies. I think that's a given.

If/when the bill comes back out of conference with nothing changed, the House will vote on it again. Since they voted against concurrence the first time (that's what sent it to committee in the first place), many feel there's a slim chance they would change their minds and vote for the same bill they just voted against. Matter of opinion here. Some of those reps said they still support it, they just wanted to send it to committee first. Phillips seems to feel that it would pass if it went through a second time.

The real danger is in the Senate. If/when the bill comes out of the conference committee and anything IS changed (e.g. the amendment is removed), it will have to be passed in both the House and the Senate, where Ellis, West and others will filibuster it until it dies.

Do I understand it correctly?

Thanks.

Pretty much as I understand it. Chances are slim to none.

[safety1]

"During a filibuster, a senator is limited to topics relevant to the bill being discussed and cannot eat, drink or use the restroom during the speech. The rules also prohibit sitting or leaning on a desk or chair under any circumstances when the senator has the floor and is speaking on the bill or resolution.

Filibusters end either when the senator voluntarily yields the floor or after three violations of the rules for decorum and debate. After the third violation, the Senate can vote on a point of order, which if sustained would force the senator to yield the floor, according to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas website."

I found the answer!

well I'm not sure how it is run or done and this is probably not possible and / or stupid but what if someone that is for open carry gets up there and filibust up to the point where no time left but to vote and then steps down do they have to hear anyone else or since time is closing can they vote? sort of a reverse filibust I guess is what I'm asking, could it happen?

Good question