TexasCHLforum.com

Here are a couple of reads on Stickland, to keep you occupied during those lulls....

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... y_hate.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ("...one of the least capable lawmakers we have in the Texas House..." "one of the worst State Representatives in Texas history..")

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... ally.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BlueMerle wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

thetexan wrote:He gave up way too quickly.

Are you talking about Huberty or BlueMerle?

It was a bad amendment and would weigh down the bill too. Certain groups should not have special rights above the rest of us.

Meh.... it was meant to convey what a jerk he was. While I'm honestly surprised that anyone was offended, it takes nothing to apologize.

It was a joke, I wasn't offended.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:That wasn't a very good retort by Phillips.

The answer is 'no, LEO do not have the ability to just stop anyone seen with a open carried gun'. That came across as a little weasely.

tex

That answer would have given support to the amendment. Phillips correctly said HB910 doesn't change current law on that issue.

Chas.

Actually I think the correct answer is "Simply being observed carrying a handgun, openly or concealed, does not provide any more cause to assume an illegal lack of license than observing someone driving a car does." I was surprised at how much trouble Rep Phillips had, but it's been a long day for him, I'm sure.

What is this long delay about?

ELB wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:That wasn't a very good retort by Phillips.

The answer is 'no, LEO do not have the ability to just stop anyone seen with a open carried gun'. That came across as a little weasely.

tex

That answer would have given support to the amendment. Phillips correctly said HB910 doesn't change current law on that issue.

Chas.

Actually I think the correct answer is "Simply being observed carrying a handgun, openly or concealed, does not provide any more cause to assume an illegal lack of license than observing someone driving a car does." I was surprised at how much trouble Rep Phillips had, but it's been a long day for him, I'm sure.

The less you say, the better off you are in that case. He wasn't going to convert his way of thinking and could only lose by offering up more info than required.

mojo84 wrote:Rep. strickland is going to be one and done.

I certainly hope so!

Chas.

TVGuy wrote:

BlueMerle wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

thetexan wrote:He gave up way too quickly.

Are you talking about Huberty or BlueMerle?

It was a bad amendment and would weigh down the bill too. Certain groups should not have special rights above the rest of us.

Meh.... it was meant to convey what a jerk he was. While I'm honestly surprised that anyone was offended, it takes nothing to apologize.

It was a joke, I wasn't offended.

Oh, I know you weren't. I was just explaining my position... and FTR I thought your joke was funny.

I was honestly surprised that anyone was offended. But since they clearly were, it was the least I could do.

This guys is saying 30.06 when the bill creates 30.07

ELB wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:That wasn't a very good retort by Phillips.

The answer is 'no, LEO do not have the ability to just stop anyone seen with a open carried gun'. That came across as a little weasely.

tex

That answer would have given support to the amendment. Phillips correctly said HB910 doesn't change current law on that issue.

Chas.

Actually I think the correct answer is "Simply being observed carrying a handgun, openly or concealed, does not provide any more cause to assume an illegal lack of license than observing someone driving a car does." I was surprised at how much trouble Rep Phillips had, but it's been a long day for him, I'm sure.

If he had said that, then the amendment would have been adopted. Some things are best left unsaid.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Rep. strickland is going to be one and done.

I certainly hope so!

Chas.

How is that even possible? He's a second term rep. (unfortunately)

TVGuy wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Rep. strickland is going to be one and done.

I certainly hope so!

Chas.

How is that even possible? He's a second term rep. (unfortunately)

We can only hope for time travel!

Stickland just got gaveled. He's close to a warning.

interesting, they just let it come up for a vote.

This Stickland is mental I think. He's something else that I won't mention here.

What just happened on that vote?