The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
I think it's going to be making UCW, or illegally carrying firearm, a felony, so as to dissuade people from violating it.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The Count wrote:Sorry for the question, but can anyone post the link to the video feed. My history clears after 3 days and it's been longer than that since I've watched or read the hb910 thread.
Would this still be a concurrence vote in the house, or to the governors desk from here. It's changing the bill with her amendmentCJD wrote:I think it's going to be making UCW, or illegally carrying firearm, a felony, so as to dissuade people from violating it.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
If amendment 9 passes, as is, and the bill passes, it goes straight to the governor. If amendment 9 fails, or is amendment by an amendment and then passes along with 910, then it goes to the House for a concurrence vote.safety1 wrote:Would this still be a concurrence vote in the house, or to the governors desk from here. It's changing the bill with her amendmentCJD wrote:I think it's going to be making UCW, or illegally carrying firearm, a felony, so as to dissuade people from violating it.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
I think it could be done either way? I presume amending it onto Huffine's Amendment 9 instead of as a separate amendment would make it a poison pill in his amendment.rfs2005 wrote:If she was wanting to increase the penalties, wouldn't that have to be a another amendment, and not an amendment to the amendment? I guess we shall see in "five" minutes.
Now that's just fantastic.The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
You forget your wallet and now it's going to be a felony? (It's already a Class A.) Huffines is an idiot and he wants to run for Congress. He fits right in with OCT, Grisham, NAGR/Dudley Brown. Anti-gun Democrats are laughing their tails off.This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now that's just fantastic.The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
Chas.
I see it differently. It was Huffman that insisted on removing a overwhelmingly bipartisan amendment in the first place. This wouldn't be left in the hands of a car dealer to defend if she had left it alone.The Annoyed Man wrote:I expect him to fight for his convictions, same as Huffman. The difference is this, she's as sharp as a tack, and his lights are on but nobody's home. I don't admire her point, I admire her effectiveness at driving it home, while he sounds like a mumbling bumbling idiot. I admire what he is doing less, because he is doing an extremely poor job of defending his amendment.TXBO wrote:That's fair. I'd expect her to fight for her convictions. Guess you would also have to admire Huffines for fighting for his conviction?The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.TXBO wrote:This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.
But that's not all.......
He IS doing a very good job of delaying the passage of a good bill, which threatens said passage, and if this bill goes down because of his obstinate insistence on defending his bill with a poorly prepared defense, then I'll not forgive him for screwing all of us.
Follow me for a minute...... What he is doing is the equivalent of insisting on "comprehensive carry reform", when it would be far more effective to get the existing bill passed, and then amend the law down the road. We have examples of this very thing in the existing law. It used to be a requirement to show both TDL and CHL to an LEO when asked for ID while carrying, punishable by possible revocation of your CHL for failure to show the CHL. That has changed. As the law currently stands, the requirement is still there, but there are no consequences for failure to comply.
That is ALL that needs to happen here. GET THIS BILL PASSED........AS IS....... and then later, down the road, amend the law with something like the Huffines amendment. What really pisses me off about him is that he is putting it ALL at risk, over something that he is woefully UNPREPARED to defend. If he screws this up and BH 910 does not pass because of his delays, it's not HIM that will pay the price, it is all CHL holders who thought they might want to open carry once in a while.
That is unpardonably stupid. So no, I guess I don't really admire what he's doing.
I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.Vol Texan wrote:This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now that's just fantastic.The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
Chas.
I'm a little slow. How does this change from the way it is now? Just because you can't (or don't) produce your CHL when asked for ID there is no penalty. How does changing the severity of unlicensed carry change this? I can see you may be detained and it may take some time to get straightened out but wouldn't the "no penalty" still apply?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now that's just fantastic.The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, I think she wants to increase punishments for those who cannot produce a CHL if asked by LEOs under circumstances which the Huffines amendment would permit.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
Chas.
Based on Lt. Gov. Patrick's press release from this morning, I don't have any concerns about HB910 going back to the House, sans amendments, and being passed. Patrick and Strauss came to an understanding or agreement of some sort. Earlier today, when the Senate first took up HB910, Estes said he wanted to pass out a clean bill with no amendments - he obviously wasn't worried either about the House passing the Senate version without Amendment 9 on a concurrence vote.CJD wrote:If amendment 9 passes, as is, and the bill passes, it goes straight to the governor. If amendment 9 fails, or is amendment by an amendment and then passes along with 910, then it goes to the House for a concurrence vote.safety1 wrote:Would this still be a concurrence vote in the house, or to the governors desk from here. It's changing the bill with her amendmentCJD wrote:I think it's going to be making UCW, or illegally carrying firearm, a felony, so as to dissuade people from violating it.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?
Chas.
No, amendments to an amendment are voted on first.K5GU wrote:Don't they need to vote on Amendment 9 before addressing the amendment to the amendment??