TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:44 pm**

shootnfish wrote:
Ruark wrote:If I'm understanding it correctly, it's dead meat. It will never survive the filibusters. Tell me I'm wrong.
It depends on how soon it comes up for a vote. In the Senate, with the current rules, long filibusters are very difficult. There is no eating, drinking, going to the bathroom, sitting or even leaning on anything for the duration.

I do forget these are TRUE filibusters and not the US Senate kind of "Implied Filibusters".

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:46 pm**

You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

NorthTexas wrote:Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:50 pm**

juno106 wrote:You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

NorthTexas wrote:Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.

For the same reason the amendment passed overwhelmingly in the house the first time and failed to concur the second time -many who were against OC voted for the amendment and for passage of the bill because they already knew what was brewing in the house. Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:52 pm**

I keep getting the hypotheticals in my head about an attempt at a marathon filibuster in the Senate LOL:

1. Do they choose a young, very healthy person to do it?
2. If an older person did it and fell out due to exhaustion, has he then yielded?

3. Will someone from the opposing side watch and keep count of rule infractions? e.g.- leaning on podium

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:57 pm**

juno106 wrote:You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

NorthTexas wrote:Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.

Please read what I posted more closely. I never said the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate. I said there was new and strong opposition to it from LEOs that caused Huffman to strip it. You may disagree, but to me, that seemed the prudent and responsible decision - strip a now controversial amendment so that the underlying bill with otherwise wide support can breeze through the legislative process, vs. leave the controversial amendment attached and possibly have it get bogged down with attacks and semi-filibusters (as we saw with Huffines' amendment), and possibly even lose the Senate vote.

It's easy to look back now, seeing that the Senate did indeed vote for Huffines' amendment, and claim there was no rational basis for Huffman to strip out the similar Dutton amendment. However, at the time, and considering the controversy, there was no way to know, and I believe she made the move that was in our best interests - work to minimize risks to the bill so we can get something passed, instead of risking everything and possibly ending up with nothing.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:58 pm**

juno106 wrote:You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.

Say what you want about Huffman removing the Dutton amendment. Huffines knowingly threw a wrench in this bill when he reintroduced his version of the Dutton amendment. He didn't do it for you or me; he did it to get his name on the bill. He knew what he was doing, he knew there was a huge risk in doing it, and he was advised against doing it. He still did it anyway. He also should have known that it is better (even if the Dutton amendment is a good idea) to fix open carry down the road if law abiding citizens end up being harassed, profiled, or stopped for no reason by police. It is his fault that we are here right now biting our nails.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 5:59 pm**

Just quoting article
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28/ ... ng-loaded/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dutton told his House colleagues that he would be perfectly happy to see the open carry legislation fail ...

And the political world in Texas still operates on what you can call the Ann Richards Rule: Don’t veto gun bills.

Both the open carry legislation — House Bill 910 — and the legislation that would allow licensed Texans to carry concealed handguns on college campuses — Senate Bill 11 — went to conference committees to settle differences between the House and Senate.

The open carry bill was resolved quickly, with the Dutton/Huffines language dropped. It’s now on its way back to the House and Senate for final approval, which would in turn send it on to Abbott for a signature.

The governor should consider himself lucky.

Abbott is a big fan of law enforcement, but governors have to watch out for that Ann Richards Rule. Now he won’t have to choose sides.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:01 pm**

Ok, I guess I can see your point.

I respectfully disagree, but I can see the argument to be made.

I will continue to argue that this is all Huffman's fault, as if the Dutton amendment was left in, the full Senate would have passed HB910 (as evidenced by the fact that they passed HB910 with the Huffines amendment), and it would have been off to the Governor, with no stops needed back at the House.

I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.

jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:03 pm**

juno106 wrote:Ok, I guess I can see your point.

I respectfully disagree, but I can see the argument to be made.

I will continue to argue that this is all Huffman's fault, as if the Dutton amendment was left in, the full Senate would have passed HB910 (as evidenced by the fact that they passed HB910 with the Huffines amendment), and it would have been off to the Governor, with no stops needed back at the House.

I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.

jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house

We will never know because Huffines is an idiot.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:05 pm**

juno106 wrote:...or

Huffman could have left in the Dutton amendment, there would have been no need for the Huffines amendment, and HB910 would have gone straight to the Gov instead of House concurrence.

Hate seeing Huffines being blamed for Huffman's blunder...

Huffman didn't delete the Dutton Amendment all by her onesies. Just sayin'. You can't lay all of that on her. Stripping it out was heavily lobbied for, and not just directed at her.

When the Dutton Amendment was originally added to HB 910, the record vote was 133 yeahs, and 10 nays: http://www.journals.house.state.tx.us/h ... DF#page=32

Yeas — Allen; Alonzo; Anderson, C.; Anderson, R.; Ashby; Aycock; Bell; Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Burns; Burrows; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Clardy; Coleman; Cook; Craddick; Crownover; Cyrier; Dale; Darby; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Dutton; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Flynn; Frank; Frullo; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; Guerra; Guillen; Harless; Herrero; Howard; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Israel; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, K.; King, P.; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Koop; Krause; Kuempel; Landgraf; Larson; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Lucio; Marquez; Martinez; McClendon; Metcalf; Meyer; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Morrison; Mun˜oz; Murphy; Murr; Naishtat; Nevarez; Oliveira; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Paul; Pen˜a; Phelan; Phillips; Pickett; Raney; Raymond; Reynolds; Riddle; Rinaldi; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.;
Romero; Rose; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Sheets; Sheffield; Simmons; Simpson; Smith; Smithee; Spitzer; Springer; Stephenson; Stickland; Thompson, E.; Thompson, S.; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; White, J.; White, M.; Workman; Wray; Zedler; Zerwas.

Nays — Alvarado; Anchia; Collier; Gonza´lez; Gutierrez; Hernandez;
Johnson; Moody; Turner, C.; Wu.
Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).
Absent, Excused — Miles; Price.
Absent — Dukes; Farias; Martinez Fischer.

STATEMENTS OF VOTE
When Record No. 295 was taken, I was shown voting no. I intended to vote
yes.
Collier

When Record No. 295 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote
no.
Nevarez

When Record No. 295 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote
no.
J. Rodriguez

Now, fast forward a few days to yesterday's debacle...... There's a list of people who voted FOR the Dutton Amendment to be added to HB910 in the House, who ALSO voted AGAINST passage when it came back to the House with the Dutton Amendment stripped out and the Huffines Amendment added in. So apparently, there were a LOT of people in the House who agreed with Huffman in the Senate. Don't believe me? I give you:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 05/27/2015

Legislative Session: 84(R) Unofficial
Bill: HB 910
Disclaimer:This vote has not been certified by the House Journal Clerk. It is provided for informational purposes only. Once the vote is certified, it will be recorded in the journal according to Rule 5 of the House Rules and made available on this web site.
RV# 1585 — Unofficial Totals: 63 Yeas, 79 Nays, 2 Present, not voting

Yeas - Anderson, R.; Bell; Burns; Burrows; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Clardy; Craddick; Cyrier; Darby; Dutton; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Flynn; Frullo; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Krause; Landgraf; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Martinez; Metcalf; Murr; Oliveira; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Paul; Phelan; Phillips; Raney; Raymond; Rinaldi; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Simmons; Simpson; Spitzer; Springer; Stickland; Thompson, S.; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; White, J.; White, M.; Wray; Zedler

Nays - Allen; Alonzo; Alvarado; Anchia; Anderson, C.; Ashby; Aycock; Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Coleman; Collier; Cook; Dale; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Farias; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Frank; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; González; Guerra; Gutierrez; Harless; Hernandez; Herrero; Howard; Israel; Johnson; King, K.; King, P.; Koop; Larson; Márquez; Martinez Fischer; Meyer; Miles; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Minjarez; Moody; Morrison; Muñoz; Murphy; Naishtat; Nevárez; Peña; Pickett; Price; Reynolds; Riddle; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.; Romero; Rose; Sheets; Sheffield; Smith; Smithee; Stephenson; Thompson, E.; Turner, C.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; Wu; Zerwas

Present, not voting - Kuempel(C); Mr. Speaker

Absent, Excused - Lucio; Workman

Absent - Crownover; Dukes; Guillen; McClendon

Disclaimer:This vote has not been certified by the House Journal Clerk. It is provided for informational purposes only. Once the vote is certified, it will be recorded in the journal according to Rule 5 of the House Rules and made available on this web site.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I couldn't bother to take the time to point out every single vote reversal, but of the first 13 Yeahs on original passage with the Dutton amendment, ELEVEN of those 13 would not vote to pass it with the Huffines amendment. And the trend is the same for the other names I did NOT highlight in red.

In other words, you can't fault Huffman. SHE voted AGAINST the same amendment that a majority of HOUSE members could not support on the second go-round. Now, if you've got a shred of curiosity, you could ask, "why would THAT be?" You can bet that it is one (or both) of two things: 1) the Huffines Amendment was worded in a way that gave it a somewhat different meaning than the Dutton Amendment; and/or 2) those eleven representatives (and the rest of them as well) were under ENORMOUS pressure from law enforcement not to pass it as is.......and they had a chance to do something about it.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:07 pm**

juno106 wrote: ...

I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.

jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house

I think Sen Huffines and his staff are smart enough to understand the concept of cut and paste. I would also suspect that fellow Senators might have mentioned the danger he was causing by using his own words. Let's just assume that he accidentally used his own language and didn't think about it at the time, then I would say he is too incompetent to be submitting an amendment like this in the 11th hour. It was unnecessary, and this is the fallout.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:10 pm**

jmra wrote:
juno106 wrote:Ok, I guess I can see your point.

I respectfully disagree, but I can see the argument to be made.

I will continue to argue that this is all Huffman's fault, as if the Dutton amendment was left in, the full Senate would have passed HB910 (as evidenced by the fact that they passed HB910 with the Huffines amendment), and it would have been off to the Governor, with no stops needed back at the House.

I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.

jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house
We will never know because Huffines is an idiot.

No. If he were an idiot, he could have be persuaded to take the amendment down with some other sop or trinket. He's a vainglory politician looking for a promotion. He knows if it passed he get's a boost. If not, who's going to remember this come '16? Besides us wonks, no one. Charles has listed the times politicians have paid the price for stopping 2A legislation and it's humorously nonexistent.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:11 pm**

Respectfully disagree.

By removing Dutton, it precluded any chance at going to directly to the Governor.

By removing Dutton, it guaranteed going back to the House, for a concurrence vote.

NorthTexas wrote:You may disagree, but to me, that seemed the prudent and responsible decision - strip a now controversial amendment so that the underlying bill with otherwise wide support can breeze through the legislative process, vs. leave the controversial amendment attached and possibly have it get bogged down with attacks and semi-filibusters (as we saw with Huffines' amendment), and possibly even lose the Senate vote.

Yes, I suppose as a Monday morning quarterback, it is easy to now look back. But Huffman was Chair, and in a position of leadership. As Sen Ellis is famous for saying, [paraphrase] "I may not know much, but I know how to count [the votes]". I would expect as much from someone in a position of leadership. Huffman "should" have known better, or not accepted the responsibility of being Chair.

NorthTexas wrote:It's easy to look back now, seeing that the Senate did indeed vote for Huffines' amendment, and claim there was no rational basis for Huffman to strip out the similar Dutton amendment. However, at the time, and considering the controversy, there was no way to know, and I believe she made the move that was in our best interests - work to minimize risks to the bill so we can get something passed, instead of risking everything and possibly ending up with nothing.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:13 pm**

The Annoyed Man wrote: Huffman didn't delete the Dutton Amendment all by her onesies. Just sayin'. You can't lay all of that on her. Stripping it out was heavily lobbied for, and not just directed at her.

Very true, she gets the blame/credit since she chaired the committee that deleted the Dutton Amendment, but enough other Senators on the committee obviously agreed to deleted it, or else it would not have happened.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2015 6:22 pm**

Irrelevant that she voted against the same amendment that a majority of HOUSE members could not support on the second go-round.

There never should have been a "second go-round".

She had the opportunity, by being in a position of leadership to leave in the Dutton amendment in spite of pressure, and preserve the opportunity for the full Senate to pass HB910, and then send it directly to the Governor.

By stripping Dutton, she guaranteed that it would have to go back to the House. She had to know there was risk involved in this.

And that is my core argument, her actions precluded any chance of HB910 going directly to the Governor, and her actions guaranteed it having to go back to the House.

And we all know how well that worked out.

The Annoyed Man wrote:In other words, you can't fault Huffman. SHE voted AGAINST the same amendment that a majority of HOUSE members could not support on the second go-round. Now, if you've got a shred of curiosity, you could ask, "why would THAT be?" You can bet that it is one (or both) of two things: 1) the Huffines Amendment was worded in a way that gave it a somewhat different meaning than the Dutton Amendment; and/or 2) those eleven representatives (and the rest of them as well) were under ENORMOUS pressure from law enforcement not to pass it as is.......and they had a chance to do something about it.

TexasCHLforum.com

HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee