TexasCHLforum.com

TrueFlog wrote:So does this have to go back to the House for them to approve the amendment? Or does it go straight to the Gov.?

Also, regarding the vote on the amendment, you can view it at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Currently, the site has not been updated with the details of the vote, but once it has, you can see who voted and how.

It goes back to the House where it will either concur in the Senate amendment(s) or not. If not, a conference committee can be established to see if an agreement can be reached. If a committee agreement is reached, the agreement will be put to an up or down vote in the Senate and House. No amendments can be made during this up or down vote.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:So does this have to go back to the House for them to approve the amendment? Or does it go straight to the Gov.?

Also, regarding the vote on the amendment, you can view it at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Currently, the site has not been updated with the details of the vote, but once it has, you can see who voted and how.

It goes back to the House where it will either concur in the Senate amendment(s) or not. If not, a conference committee can be established to see if an agreement can be reached. If a committee agreement is reached, the agreement will be put to an up or down vote in the Senate and House. No amendments can be made during this up or down vote.

Chas.

Any chance the conference committee can agree to expand the amendment to cover all CHL'ers - not just elected officials?

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:So does this have to go back to the House for them to approve the amendment? Or does it go straight to the Gov.?

Also, regarding the vote on the amendment, you can view it at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB508" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Currently, the site has not been updated with the details of the vote, but once it has, you can see who voted and how.

It goes back to the House where it will either concur in the Senate amendment(s) or not. If not, a conference committee can be established to see if an agreement can be reached. If a committee agreement is reached, the agreement will be put to an up or down vote in the Senate and House. No amendments can be made during this up or down vote.

Chas.

Any chance the conference committee can agree to expand the amendment to cover all CHL'ers - not just elected officials?

No, it cannot be done.

Chas.

suthdj wrote:

croc870 wrote:The amendment would allow elected officials to essentially carry anywhere in Texas.

I hope your wrong as that will just be yet anther huge slap in our faces.

How exactly would something like this even be enforced? How would LEO differentiate between elected official and regular citizen?
If they get caught carrying do they just shout, "Don't you know who I am?!" Or will they just be assigned some sort of get out of jail free card?

ShepherdTX wrote:

suthdj wrote:

croc870 wrote:The amendment would allow elected officials to essentially carry anywhere in Texas.

I hope your wrong as that will just be yet anther huge slap in our faces.

How exactly would something like this even be enforced? How would LEO differentiate between elected official and regular citizen?
If they get caught carrying do they just shout, "Don't you know who I am?!" Or will they just be assigned some sort of get out of jail free card?

Maybe a sash and a tiara to go along with their official vehicle license plates?

Why do we have to wait until 2015? Personally I think the Governor should call a special session and put 1318 on the agenda. I think Perry should then hold a news conference and spell out how despicable it is for our legislators to grant themselves an exception that doesn't apply to all CHL holders based on nothing more than they are an elected official. They have no additional training, no additional skills that would set them apart from the rest of the CHL holders in the Great State of Texas.

This is pure hogwash and there is no guarantee that these elected officials will ever grant the same privileges to the rest of the common folks.

I do appreciate everything that Charles does for this board and CHL holders and none of my comments are directed at Charles, but like many others I just can't stand this attitude from our elected officials that screams " I am better than you and deserve a special set of rights just because I was able to get elected".

I am completely disgusted with this whole process. I am tired of watching other states make headway while we tread water.

Actions speak louder than words and I know exactly what the actions of those that voted for this amendment are saying to the rest of us unfortunetly due to the ten year old daughter rule I can't write it out here.

R2C,
We can hope it gets called in for special session, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I woould really like to hear Perry rake'em over the coals though!

Apparently there was yelling, talking over each other, etc. (by officials) yesterday re elected officials carrying anywhere. It was nice to hear some officials actually say it was wrong to do this for them but not for the regular Joe. They had to go back into committee, so who knows what happens now. It was on the Austin radio this morning, yelling and all. A proponent for the elected officials carrying anywhere said he needed to carry anywhere because of what happened to G. Gifford in Arizona and besides we regular Joe's got plenty of new gun laws this session.

That is a crazy argument. There are more of us regular Joes being targeted than the elites on an annual basis. His argument is only based on his believe the elites are more valuable than we are. It's sickening.

Anyone know exactly who that propenent was?

RHenriksen wrote:Anyone know exactly who that propenent was?

read here
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/23/ ... ry-rights/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damn... I'm actually proud of (some of) our politicians!!!

RHenriksen wrote:darn... I'm actually proud of (some of) our politicians!!!

This is what happens when you elect citizen legislators. The bill passed in the Senate because they've been politicians for so long (for the most part) that they think of themselves as different from "us". The House is much closer to the people because the legislators represent smaller numbers and have to stand for office more often, and some of the new ones don't cotton to carving out special exemptions for themselves.

Here's what would be absolutely fantastic. The conference committee agrees to amend the law to include ALL of us and it passes.

Either that or the language Carona added to the bill gets removed and it goes back to the original bill. It's past time for politicians to wake up and realize they are SERVANTS of the people.

From what I understand of Charles' recent posts on the matter, modifying the bill to include all citizens isn't an available option by the rules they work under. But I'd love to be proven wrong!

RHenriksen wrote:From what I understand of Charles' recent posts on the matter, modifying the bill to include all citizens isn't an available option by the rules they work under. But I'd love to be proven wrong!

While it could be added, it would face a point-of-order just like the one that was asserted in the House. However, based upon the heated debate on the floor yesterday, it would stand a better chance now, but we still have Lon Burnam and other rabid anit-gunners who could and I believe would assert a point-of-order against any pro-gun amendment.

Chas.