TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, is this Huffines any relation to the car dealer Huffines? If so, remind me to never buy from them.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

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.

Now that's just fantastic. 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.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

I surmise she is just trying to increase the penalty to persuade people from doing it, realizing this amendment might pass, JMHO

And if the House doesn't go along with it, and it very well may not, then we could be at an dead end just as we were last session when HB508 went down in flames.

People, I don't think anyone realizes just how urgent this situation is. If HB910 goes down, so does campus-carry. All because an idiot wants to grandstand.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, is this Huffines any relation to the car dealer Huffines? If so, remind me to never buy from them.

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

K.Mooneyham wrote:So, is this Huffines any relation to the car dealer Huffines? If so, remind me to never buy from them.

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

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.

Now that's just fantastic. 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.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

I surmise she is just trying to increase the penalty to persuade people from doing it, realizing this amendment might pass, JMHO

And if the House doesn't go along with it, and it very well may not, then we could be at an dead end just as we were last session when HB508 went down in flames.

People, I don't think anyone realizes just how urgent this situation is. If HB910 goes down, so does campus-carry. All because an idiot wants to grandstand.

Chas.

Appears to me that Huffman is doing the grandstanding now.

K5GU wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

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.

Now that's just fantastic. 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.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

I surmise she is just trying to increase the penalty to persuade people from doing it, realizing this amendment might pass, JMHO

And if the House doesn't go along with it, and it very well may not, then we could be at an dead end just as we were last session when HB508 went down in flames.

People, I don't think anyone realizes just how urgent this situation is. If HB910 goes down, so does campus-carry. All because an idiot wants to grandstand.

Chas.

..Just as will be the candidates next time...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

To be factually correct, you can't remove an amendment that hasn't yet been passed. He has proposed an amendment. She is arguing against it. She conceded that she would probably lose the vote on the amendment as it stood, but might win on a vote to amend his amendment with her additional requirement regarding updates to stiffen unlicensed carry punishments. That is where we stand. Amendment #10 to amend #9.

So, because of Huffine's misguided efforts, we may get stronger penalties for forgetting a wallet at home. Her amendment would not have been offered if not for his amendment. Hers upgrades punishments from a Class A Misdemeanor to a 2nd Degree Felony, punishable by 2-20 years in prison with a fine of up to $20,000. Other 2nd Degree felonies would include robbery, aggravated assaults, and drug possession of over certain amounts. Thank you, Senator Huffines. I forget my wallet at home, I can get up to 20 years in prison.

THIS is why he's an idiot.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

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.

Now that's just fantastic. 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.

Chas.

This is Huffman's idea, not Huffine's.

I realize that, but it's Huffines fault.

Chas.

I surmise she is just trying to increase the penalty to persuade people from doing it, realizing this amendment might pass, JMHO

And if the House doesn't go along with it, and it very well may not, then we could be at an dead end just as we were last session when HB508 went down in flames.

People, I don't think anyone realizes just how urgent this situation is. If HB910 goes down, so does campus-carry. All because an idiot wants to grandstand.

Chas.

..Just as will be the candidates next time...

Not a single candidate lost reelection because HB508 went down. In fact, the man who caused it was elected Lt. Governor.

Chas.