TexasCHLforum.com

From Lavender's Facebook page:

You are right. It changes the 30.06 language, and it wasn't supposed to. We will fix it in the committee substitute. Thanks for your patience.

BPNovum wrote:I spoke with Calendars Committee Chairman Todd Hunter yesterday. He said he will make sure the bill gets through his committee when it gets to him. He recommends it gets there as soon as possible so it doesn't get lost like it did last session when it cleared committee late in the session and calendars could not deal with it.

I did not talk to him about 30:06 because that issue should be resolved in the Homeland Security and Public Safety committee.

Committees don't get set up until tomorrow. Any member of the calendars committee can tag a bill, meaning it doesn't get considered.

Chas.

UPDATE ON HB700.

TSRA Lobbyist Alice Tripp spoke directly with Rep. Lavender today about HB700. As I suspected, HB700 was created entirely by legislative counsel and it is not what Rep. Lavender wanted. He filed it anyway to help get a lower bill number (doesn't really help, except it represents earlier filing) fully intending that a committee substitute will be filed that removes any amendment to TPC §30.06.

Contrary to what's being reported on other boards, the NRA had nothing to do with writing HB700 and had absolutely no input on the specific wording whatsoever. The NRA lobbyist met with Rep. Lavender and told him that TPC §30.06 absolutely cannot be amended and that, if he or open-carry supporters wanted a "big ugly sign," they need to create a TPC §30.07. Rep. Lavender promised the NRA that TPC §30.06 would/will not be amended and he fully intends to keep that promise. Also, contrary to posts on another board, the NRA did not demand or recommend that the words "or unconcealed" be added to the numerous sections of the Government and Penal Codes.

I have no doubt Rep. Lavender will do what he said he'd do and I want to thank Alice for talking directly to Rep. Lavender to get this cleared up.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:UPDATE ON HB700.

TSRA Lobbyist Alice Tripp spoke directly with Rep. Lavender today about HB700. As I suspected, HB700 was created entirely by legislative counsel and it is not what Rep. Lavender wanted. He filed it anyway to help get a lower bill number (doesn't really help, except it represents earlier filing) fully intending that a committee substitute will be filed that removes any amendment to TPC §30.06.

Contrary to what's being reported on other boards, the NRA had nothing to do with writing HB700 and had absolutely no input on the specific wording whatsoever. The NRA lobbyist met with Rep. Lavender and told him that TPC §30.06 absolutely cannot be amended and that, if he or open-carry supporters wanted a "big ugly sign," they need to create a TPC §30.07. Rep. Lavender promised the NRA that TPC §30.06 would/will not be amended and he fully intends to keep that promise. Also, contrary to posts on another board, the NRA did not demand or recommend that the words "or unconcealed" be added to the numerous sections of the Government and Penal Codes.

I have no doubt Rep. Lavender will do what he said he'd do and I want to thank Alice for talking directly to Rep. Lavender to get this cleared up.

Chas.

Glad to hear it, and a hearty thank you to Ms. Tripp for clarifying things.

I'll be watching the TLO website to see who is on calendars.

Charles, is there any way to know who flags bills to keep them from going forward?

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:UPDATE ON HB700.

TSRA Lobbyist Alice Tripp spoke directly with Rep. Lavender today about HB700. As I suspected, HB700 was created entirely by legislative counsel and it is not what Rep. Lavender wanted. He filed it anyway to help get a lower bill number (doesn't really help, except it represents earlier filing) fully intending that a committee substitute will be filed that removes any amendment to TPC §30.06.

Contrary to what's being reported on other boards, the NRA had nothing to do with writing HB700 and had absolutely no input on the specific wording whatsoever. The NRA lobbyist met with Rep. Lavender and told him that TPC §30.06 absolutely cannot be amended and that, if he or open-carry supporters wanted a "big ugly sign," they need to create a TPC §30.07. Rep. Lavender promised the NRA that TPC §30.06 would/will not be amended and he fully intends to keep that promise. Also, contrary to posts on another board, the NRA did not demand or recommend that the words "or unconcealed" be added to the numerous sections of the Government and Penal Codes.

I have no doubt Rep. Lavender will do what he said he'd do and I want to thank Alice for talking directly to Rep. Lavender to get this cleared up.

Chas.

Charles, is there any way to know who flags bills to keep them from going forward?

No, and that is a disgrace.

Chas.

That's good, Mr. Cotton. I look forward to reading an updated bill at some point... I don't think I would OC if this passes, but my concern has always been how this may negatively impact CC. If the answer is 'no negative impact' then great!

Would be nice to see both campus carry & open carry (after fixing current version) passing in this session... then next session remove restrictions on voting places, sporting events, racetracks, courthouses, etc.

77346 wrote:That's good, Mr. Cotton. I look forward to reading an updated bill at some point... I don't think I would OC if this passes, but my concern has always been how this may negatively impact CC. If the answer is 'no negative impact' then great!

Would be nice to see both campus carry & open carry (after fixing current version) passing in this session... then next session remove restrictions on voting places, sporting events, racetracks, courthouses, etc.

I don't think we would see courtrooms go away, but I agree with courthouses and most court offices going away. There are usually other type offices in courthouses.

MeMelYup wrote:

77346 wrote:That's good, Mr. Cotton. I look forward to reading an updated bill at some point... I don't think I would OC if this passes, but my concern has always been how this may negatively impact CC. If the answer is 'no negative impact' then great!

Would be nice to see both campus carry & open carry (after fixing current version) passing in this session... then next session remove restrictions on voting places, sporting events, racetracks, courthouses, etc.

I don't think we would see courtrooms go away, but I agree with courthouses and most court offices going away. There are usually other type offices in courthouses.

One annex right down the road from me has the sherriff, constable, a judge, courtroom, and the tax assessor all in one convenient package.

So, anyone with a CHL who has to get their car registration renewed or has to pay a speeding ticket for their kid or spouse, has to disarm because it has a court room.

Hopefully they will remove or at least clarify the "dual points of retention" language as well.

Between this thread and the post from Charles about the power of the Speaker, I now have doubts that any of our bills will pass.

Ray

Luggo1 wrote:Between this thread and the post from Charles about the power of the Speaker, I now have doubts that any of our bills will pass.

Ray

When Strauss was re-elected and given the poor results, from a Conservative viewpoint, of the 2011 Session, I figured we would get crumbs at best. No way was the improvement in the number of places that CHLs can carry, campus carry or anything else of significance going to see the light of day on the House floor to be voted on.

In many ways it is like the Federal elections. Until a way is found to replace Strauss, Conservative ideas will remain out in the cold, regardless of the number of Conservative legislators we send to Austin.

Then we need to keep pressure on the Speaker's office.

He needs to hear more pro- than anti- voices.

Jasonw560 wrote:Then we need to keep pressure on the Speaker's office.

He needs to hear more pro- than anti- voices.

At the right time, so everyone needs to be ready to answer the calls-to-action.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:Then we need to keep pressure on the Speaker's office.

He needs to hear more pro- than anti- voices.

At the right time, so everyone needs to be ready to answer the calls-to-action.

Chas.

Just sound the Clarion call, and I'm sure I can get most of m family and some of my friends to help out.

AEA wrote:The way they have it worded, a IWB with a thumb break would do. Again, ambiguous, but I believe the belt of the IWB would suffice as the 2nd retention point. Now the question is.....would the LEO that came to visit with you agree?

The other question is........ does anyone make a IWB with thumb break?

Thumb breaks are not always good. In my early years of CHL, I chose to have a thumb break added to my Tucker Texas Heritage for my 1911.

I became dissatisfied because it kept disengaging the safety and had it removed.

It no longer appears as an option for their IWB holsters.

Also, Tucker now includes the following statement on their web page for OWB holsters:

****NOTE: We are no longer offering thumbbreaks on our holsters.****