TexasCHLforum.com

Paragrouper wrote:

G26ster wrote:Must be static line only then. No way a grouper can pull a rip cord

Back on topic. When Charles said, "much of SB1581 is unnecessary," I assumed that meant that the bill would go nowhere. So, if that's the bill the CC amendment is attached to, there seemed to me little chance of CC passing. Hence my question in response to his post.

You Bet, I was much too ugly to be picked for HALO school.

From what little I've seen of Texas politics, its anybody's guess what will happen. I do know there is some stiff opposition--so we'll see what the next few days bring.

Love the avatar.

flintknapper wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

G26ster wrote:Must be static line only then. No way a grouper can pull a rip cord

Back on topic. When Charles said, "much of SB1581 is unnecessary," I assumed that meant that the bill would go nowhere. So, if that's the bill the CC amendment is attached to, there seemed to me little chance of CC passing. Hence my question in response to his post.

You Bet, I was much too ugly to be picked for HALO school.

From what little I've seen of Texas politics, its anybody's guess what will happen. I do know there is some stiff opposition--so we'll see what the next few days bring.

Love the avatar.

I love Grouper--especially grilled!

"Campus Guns Bill Hits Roadblock in State House"

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/05/20/camp ... ate-house/

You have got to be kidding me.. ugh.. COME ON Senate.. don't Senators have people to read and know the rules of the bills before they vote on stuff...

Whoops!! Thats less than we hoped for.

That is really disheartening.

Can anyone summarize the parking lot bill? I understand that's passed.

Millerk420 wrote:You have got to be kidding me.. ugh.. COME ON Senate.. don't Senators have people to read and know the rules of the bills before they vote on stuff...

Senate and House rules don't mirror one another. Usually it isn't a problem, but on controversial bills, it sometimes is.

Chas.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Is there anyone who knows exactly what is going on with these two, in a very short answer sort of way? I put this in political issues section because if the way this stuff has been going isn't "political", I really don't know what is. If this is NOT a good way to do this, my apologies. I'm just fully confused about what is alive and dead at this point...I just cannot follow this stuff, too many twists and turns. IF this gets deleted, can someone in the know please PM me? Thank you.

In simple terms, the legislature is voting for more violent crime and against self defense.

megs wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Is there anyone who knows exactly what is going on with these two, in a very short answer sort of way? I put this in political issues section because if the way this stuff has been going isn't "political", I really don't know what is. If this is NOT a good way to do this, my apologies. I'm just fully confused about what is alive and dead at this point...I just cannot follow this stuff, too many twists and turns. IF this gets deleted, can someone in the know please PM me? Thank you.

In simple terms, the legislature is voting for more violent crime and against self defense.

Parking lots, too? I thought that'd passed.

Dave2 wrote:Parking lots, too? I thought that'd passed.

Not yet. It still has a chance but it's not a done deal.

I would be nice if the Federal senate rules were similar....cut out all the add ons to bills.

In this case however, it is a drag

megs wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:Is there anyone who knows exactly what is going on with these two, in a very short answer sort of way? I put this in political issues section because if the way this stuff has been going isn't "political", I really don't know what is. If this is NOT a good way to do this, my apologies. I'm just fully confused about what is alive and dead at this point...I just cannot follow this stuff, too many twists and turns. IF this gets deleted, can someone in the know please PM me? Thank you.

In simple terms, the legislature is voting for more violent crime and against self defense.

Well, by and large, I think its fairly easy to see which political party is FOR self-defense and which political party is AGAINST self-defense. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but that is exactly what they are, exceptions. Politics is often a lesser of the evils game, and as for me personally, I have no problem at all deciding who the lesser of the evils is...lets just say I'm no fan of criminals and law-breakers, and those that would give them ANY aid and comfort against law-abiding citizenry.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

megs wrote:In simple terms, the legislature is voting for more violent crime and against self defense.

Well, by and large, I think its fairly easy to see which political party is FOR self-defense and which political party is AGAINST self-defense.

A Democratic majority in the legislature and a Democratic Lt. Governor passed the original campus carry bill.

We're seeing right now what a 65% majority Republican legislature is willing to pass.

From a knowldeable source, RINO Straus and Rep. Hunter in Calendars are best buds.
Knowing this, what Calendars has done makes more sense. I don't lke it, but we can understand where the buryng of some bills came from. Plus, it's a re-districtng/election year. Better safe than sorry n their minds. Too bad it'll backfire on them.

Would faxing Lucio every month's CLERY reports from the colleges in his district with a note saying, "you could have helped lower these numbers with SB 354" be a bit too much?

megs wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Parking lots, too? I thought that'd passed.

Not yet. It still has a chance but it's not a done deal.

It's not merely a "chance." Absent a catastrophic meltdown, parking lots will be fine.

Chas.