TexasCHLforum.com

I just logged on. has HB910 come up yet?

Maxwell wrote:I just logged on. has HB910 come up yet?

The conscientious of the forum it that it won't be heard today. Still administrative processes to take place.
But none of us really know.

The Texas Legislator site says it has passed and is just waiting on the governor's. it also has no notes on the amendments in this thread nor do I know anything about what is being proposed.

HELP ME! I am so confused...

Maxwell wrote:The Texas Legislator site says it has passed and is just waiting on the governor's. it also has no notes on the amendments in this thread nor do I know anything about what is being proposed.

HELP ME! I am so confused...

The site assumes a best-case scenario of entering one chamber and exiting the other with no changes. In those cases, The Governor will get the bill. It has no allowances for a large number of bills that have to go back to the other chamber for some reason, like new amendments. My guess is the programmer was not fully briefed on the process and all its possible tangles. In short, we wait on both it and SB11 *tickticktick*

Maxwell wrote:The Texas Legislator site says it has passed and is just waiting on the governor's. it also has no notes on the amendments in this thread nor do I know anything about what is being proposed.

HELP ME! I am so confused...

Maxwell, I know exactly how you feel! It IS confusing. The thing we have to do is educate ourselves so we know what's going on. And the way to do that is to read "How A Bill Becomes Law". It's extremely helpful when trying to sort out these confusing details. It can be found here:

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading it, the article gives an EXTREMELY helpful flowchart of how a bill winds its way through the Legislature. It can be found on P. 11 of the article OR P. 19 of 73, if you go by the .pdf format.

Reading that article & constantly looking at that flowchart is the only thing that lets me keep my sanity.

joe817 wrote:And the way to do that is to read "How A Bill Becomes Law". It's extremely helpful when trying to sort out these confusing details. It can be found here:

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading it, the article gives an EXTREMELY helpful flowchart of how a bill winds its way through the Legislature. It can be found on P. 11 of the article OR P. 19 of 73, if you go by the .pdf format.

I'm sorry, I can't let that go unanswered without posting this:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0[/youtube]

Hey TAM, we used to watch the original one on Saturday morning cartoonies! I loved that one!

Cross Posted from another thread:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Dutton Amendment:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

The underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.

CJD wrote:Cross Posted from another thread:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Dutton Amendment:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

The underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.

The thing that gets me about all this is that it would take a moron to mess up copying and pasting the language from the Dutton Amendment into a new document. To see this degree of a change tells me the difference is intentional, and makes me wonder if Huffines effort was aimed at killing this bill or killing the deal to pass Campus Carry. Consider that he fought so hard to get the amendment added to the bill and intentionally produced a differently worded amendment that the debate was guaranteed to eat a lot of our very limited time to pass it. His amendment forces a concurrence vote at best, and possibly a conference committee which will eat up more time and possibly open the bill to a filibuster. Then there are the potential risks that Campus Carry faces now that the reported deal between the house and senate leadership to pass OC and CC is on shaky ground at best. So the real question in my opinion is was Huffines trying to kill OC, CC, or both?

Keep in mind that this has to be an intentional change in the language when the difference is that greate and remember that the author claimed it was identical to.

[quote="G.A. Heath"][quote="CJD"]Cross Posted from another thread:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

[quote]Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person[u]’s[/u] [u]possession of[/u]
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying [b]in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.[/b][/quote]

Dutton Amendment:

[quote]Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to [u]whether[/u] a person
[u]possesses[/u] a handgun license solely because the person is carrying [b]a
partially or wholly visible handgun[/b][u] carried[/u][b] in a shoulder or belt
holster.[/b][/quote]

The underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.[/quote]

The thing that gets me about all this is that it would take a moron to mess up copying and pasting the language from the Dutton Amendment into a new document. To see this degree of a change tells me the difference is intentional, and makes me wonder if Huffines effort was aimed at killing this bill or killing the deal to pass Campus Carry. Consider that he fought so hard to get the amendment added to the bill and intentionally produced a differently worded amendment that the debate was guaranteed to eat a lot of our very limited time to pass it. His amendment forces a concurrence vote at best, and possibly a conference committee which will eat up more time and possibly open the bill to a filibuster. Then there are the potential risks that Campus Carry faces now that the reported deal between the house and senate leadership to pass OC and CC is on shaky ground at best. So the real question in my opinion is was Huffines trying to kill OC, CC, or both?

Keep in mind that this has to be an intentional change in the language when the difference is that greate and remember that the author claimed it was identical to.[/quote]

With copy and paste being what they are: hard to use and all, his actions do appear to be nefarious at best.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

joe817 wrote:And the way to do that is to read "How A Bill Becomes Law". It's extremely helpful when trying to sort out these confusing details. It can be found here:

http://www.tlc.state.tx.us/pubslegref/gtli.pdf#page=7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading it, the article gives an EXTREMELY helpful flowchart of how a bill winds its way through the Legislature. It can be found on P. 11 of the article OR P. 19 of 73, if you go by the .pdf format.

I'm sorry, I can't let that go unanswered without posting this:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0[/youtube]

How wrong is it that I remember more from school house rock than the political science classes I took in college and got A's in?

And, all the "doom and gloom" you are espousing would not have happened, if Huffines hadn't put forth his amendment?!

Really?!

Huffman's stripping of the Dutton amendment in Committee, prior to going to the full Senate, also would have forced... [insert quote of doom & gloom]

a concurrence vote at best, and possibly a conference committee which will eat up more time and possibly open the bill to a filibuster. Then there are the potential risks that Campus Carry faces now that the reported deal between the house and senate leadership to pass OC and CC is on shaky ground at best.

Lets ask the same question about Huffman, shall we?

was Huffines trying to kill OC, CC, or both?

Remember this ?!

Amend Floor Amendment No. 9 to CSHB 910 (Senate Committee Report version) by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION to the amendment and renumbering subsequent SECTIONS of the amendment accordingly:
Section ____. Section 46.02, Texas Penal Code is amended as follows:
(b) Except as provided by Subsection Subsections (c) and (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under Sections (a) and (a-1) is a felony of the second degree if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun.

juno106 wrote:And, all the "doom and gloom" you are espousing would not have happened, if Huffines hadn't put forth his amendment?!

Really?!

Huffman's stripping of the Dutton amendment in Committee, prior to going to the full Senate, also would have forced... [insert quote of doom & gloom]

a concurrence vote at best, and possibly a conference committee which will eat up more time and possibly open the bill to a filibuster. Then there are the potential risks that Campus Carry faces now that the reported deal between the house and senate leadership to pass OC and CC is on shaky ground at best.

Lets ask the same question about Huffman, shall we?

was Huffines trying to kill OC, CC, or both?

Remember this ?!

Amend Floor Amendment No. 9 to CSHB 910 (Senate Committee Report version) by adding the following appropriately numbered SECTION to the amendment and renumbering subsequent SECTIONS of the amendment accordingly:
Section ____. Section 46.02, Texas Penal Code is amended as follows:
(b) Except as provided by Subsection Subsections (c) and (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under Sections (a) and (a-1) is a felony of the second degree if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun.

Good points, however you forget, or fail to mention, that there supposedly was/is a deal between the house and senate leadership for the senate to pass HB910 minus the Dutton amendment in exchange for the house to pass SB11. Now both bills are in danger, I could give you an example of the logic our opponents will use to try and convince house reps to vote against concurrence but I won't just in case they have not thought of it. CJ Grisham is attacking the NRA and TSRA on facebook because they tried to kill the Huffines amendment in order to save the deal to pass both OC and CC, now we might get one or we might get both, or we might get neither but had the senate passed HB910 w/o Huffines amendment we would know for a fact we were getting both.

juno106 wrote:And, all the "doom and gloom" you are espousing would not have happened, if Huffines hadn't put forth his amendment?!

Really?!

Huffman's stripping of the Dutton amendment in Committee, prior to going to the full Senate, also would have forced... [insert quote of doom & gloom]

You are assuming that the Dutton amendment had no impact on the support of HB910 with that provision. I can't say more at this point, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to get the picture. It's understandable that people would make this assumption, but that doesn't change the facts.

The Huffines amendment has put two Bills in jeopardy.

Chas.

Huffines:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Dutton:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.

Actually....... the grammar in the Dutton version is incorrect. Some of you might have difficulty seeing this, but I'm seeing it as someone with a lifetime of professional writing experience. You may have to stare at it a minute. Bear with me:

- the way it's written, it's stating "...solely because the person is carrying..." as a reason a person possesses a handgun license, not as a reason an LEO can't make an investigatory stop.

- even disregarding the first grammar issue, it's stating that the officer can't stop someone solely because they're carrying in a shoulder or belt holster, which isn't the semantic intent of the language.

- it uses "carry" redundantly. Your freshman English professor would kill you for this one: "carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster."

As much as I hate to admit it, Huffine's version is far superior to Dutton's, grammatically speaking. It's actually very well written, although he should have a comma after "carrying" and "holster."