TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

dan patrick stated that the amendment is the same but not worded exactly the same (whatever that may mean) and that the house only has to accept it and he feels they will do that tomorrow -- he is stating this on his facebook https://www.facebook.com/dan.patrick.texas?fref=ts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I listened to the Dutton amendment when it was voted on by the house, and it was just about word for word ....

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

Mr. Huffines did not kill HB910 dispite the best efforts of Huffman, Rinos and liberals.

TXBO wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

It was an irresponsible gamble that gained nothing and could have cost much more. It still may have, but only time will tell. He did it to gain notoriety for himself so he can run for Congress. That's not supporting gun owners, it's furthering his own interest.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

It was an irresponsible gamble that gained nothing and could have cost much more. It still may have, but only time will tell.

Chas.

I completely disagree with you Mr. Cotton but again I thank you for your efforts.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

It was an irresponsible gamble that gained nothing and could have cost much more. It still may have, but only time will tell. He did it to gain notoriety for himself so he can run for Congress. That's not supporting gun owners, it's furthering his own interest.

Chas.

He looked like an idiot while doing it. Im not sure he gained the notoriety he was looking for.

Smily wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

It was an irresponsible gamble that gained nothing and could have cost much more. It still may have, but only time will tell. He did it to gain notoriety for himself so he can run for Congress. That's not supporting gun owners, it's furthering his own interest.

Chas.

He looked like an idiot while doing it. Im not sure he gained the notoriety he was looking for.

I don't care about his notoriety. The result was good.

Say what you want about Huffines, I think the real loser tonight was Sen Huffman.

A Class 2 Felony?

Really?

Rhino. She's gotta go.

Makes me ashamed to say I live in Houston.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Stripes Dude wrote:

SewTexas wrote:Huffines kept saying that the "exact" amendment had passed in the house. So it would make no sense that it's not the same.

Given what we saw today, I put no trust in anything Huffines says. He had no idea what he was doing out there.

He got it passed.

It was an irresponsible gamble that gained nothing and could have cost much more. It still may have, but only time will tell. He did it to gain notoriety for himself so he can run for Congress. That's not supporting gun owners, it's furthering his own interest.

Chas.

furthering their own interest is what they all do. That's how they keep getting reelected, and that's how they keep getting raises.

I did not watch the vote, what did we get with amendments?
1) No stop for just OC?
2) Ticket of max $200 for being in 30.06 area?

Beiruty wrote:I did not watch the vote, what did we get with amendments?
1) No stop for just OC?
2) Ticket of max $200 for being in 30.06 area?

With the exception of a possible typo its identical to what left the House.

viewtopic.php?p=984573#p984573" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Deltaboy wrote:This is going to drive me MAD.

viewtopic.php?p=984574#p984574" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Deltaboy wrote:This is going to drive me MAD.

It's going to drive you MAD twice?

So can police stop an OCer and make him display his CHL or not?

Has anyone else noticed that 30.06 states:

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

while 30.07 states:

(iii) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public at each entrance to the property.

However, with the punishment only being a Class C, I guess it's not as big a deal.