TexasCHLforum.com

txyaloo wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:So now I can't take a picture of a public Rep out in public? That's what they want (more so for the women)...

Seems like they're missing the point of the section. It just stops the recording of the conversations. W/O reading the bill, it seems like it doesn't stop the activities. People can still stop and ask questions w/o recording the conversations. I don't see how it offers any protection to the female members.

It's amazing that some of these people get elected. She is determined to establish a special class for themselves. It's a shame her constituents don't see what she is doing.

You're not missing anything. Just a lot of talking.

txyaloo wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:So now I can't take a picture of a public Rep out in public? That's what they want (more so for the women)...

Seems like they're missing the point of the section. It just stops the recording of the conversations. W/O reading the bill, it seems like it doesn't stop the activities. People can still stop and ask questions w/o recording the conversations. I don't see how it offers any protection to the female members.

The woman testifying and some of the men have been saying that this is far more important for just the female Representatives. They need it so they don't get harassed in public by people without press passes. I haven't read the bill but that's what is being spewed.

CoffeeNut wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Point of order?????

I thought that it was ok for ME to be photographed in the mall?

It is! The Reps just want an exemption solely for them...

if it's so bad that the women feel threatened then they need more troopers.

it failed,

good

Amendment 22????!!! You know, if a bill has to be modified that much, it was poorly written in the first place and should be taken down.

SewTexas wrote:it failed, good

Totally agree SewTexas!

83 amendments on SB11.

If it failed doesn't that mean that the amendment for "gotcha" media stays in the bill?

If that's the case, they cut out a special privilege for themselves.

Or am I hearing this wrong?

TexasJohnBoy wrote:83 amendments on SB11.

Are you kidding? Got a URL? I guess they're going to "amend it to death."

TexasJohnBoy wrote:83 amendments on SB11.

I'm not surprised. Without looking, I'd guess that 90% of them are from anti-gun liberals.

SewTexas wrote:it failed,

good

The amendment was good.
I'm sad to see it failed.

If the Bill is signed into law, you will need the legislators permission to record your conversation with them, but they will not need your permission to record a conversation with you. How is that good?

Ruark wrote:Amendment 22????!!! You know, if a bill has to be modified that much, it was poorly written in the first place and should be taken down.

Not really. You're assuming that the purpose of the amendments is to make it better, not weaken it, make a point, or delay it or other bills. The bill could be "perfect" and someone would be throwing out amendments to keep from getting to SB 11.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:83 amendments on SB11.

Stick a fork in it (again).

It has nothing to do with guns, but I'm going to write the Governor and ask him to veto SB19 solely because it was used as a vehicle to great special protection to elected officials. Last session, the House refused to concur with HB508 because it created a special class of people (elected officials) who could carry their handguns everywhere in the State. The Bill went to conference and came out with even more people added to the group of elites. The House voted it down overwhelmingly. If I recall correctly, there were only 13 votes in favor.

Fast forward one session and House Members don't have a problem treating elected officials as a privileged class. This is disgusting.

Chas.