TexasCHLforum.com

how long will they let 1 person speak asking the SAME QUESTIONS?

I had to turn it off

it is ridiculous that I cannot watch it, as it is driving me NUTS with the IDIOCY of it!

Whitmire is occupying the floor discussing Open Carry instead of Amendment 9. Where's the call for order?

Teamless wrote:how long will they let 1 person speak asking the SAME QUESTIONS?

I had to turn it off

it is ridiculous that I cannot watch it, as it is driving me NUTS with the IDIOCY of it!

Too long!

Is there anyway to stop this Amend. 9 discussion and get on with the next time wasting arguments?

Senator Whitmire"I have been here for 42 years..."

Well sir that about 32 years too long

Syntyr wrote:Senator Whitmire"I have been here for 42 years..."

Well sir that about 32 years too long

My thoughts exactly!!

If there is an accident involving someone OCing when the officer asks for ID the OCer has to provide his CHL. Deans argument doesn't hold water.

jmra wrote:If there is an accident involving someone OCing when the officer asks for ID the OCer has to provide his CHL. Deans argument doesn't hold water.

Precisely!!!

Huffines needs to go on the offensive.

If an officer sees a person NOT carrying openly, how does the officers behavior change vs interacting with someone carrying openly?
If I see a guy carrying openly, I'm thinking the likelihood of the guy being a "bad guy" is actually less than if I don't see a gun.
If I'm a bad guy, I'm gonna conceal.

The whole line of opposition to the Amendment is wrong. IMO

Whitmire is way way off base .....way off ......

People tell me I'm so very, very patient. I can't hold a candle to Estes.

I'm disappointed that when Whitmire brought up the capitol example (to scare his fellow Senators, obviously), Huffines didn't reply with: "When you enter the capitol you already have to show your CHL. So everyone inside the capitol has already had their license checked".

I'm not going into private conversations, but hopefully people can see the problem with this provision. Remember, I said earlier that there was a reason the Dutton Amendment was stripped in committee rather than having this debate on the floor. An amendment would have been offered to strip it and there are people who will line up to speak against it. Now, Huffines has created precisely the problem sought to be avoided and he's too proud to pull it down so HB910 can be voted.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:Huffines needs to go on the offensive.

If an officer sees a person NOT carrying openly, how does the officers behavior change vs interacting with someone carrying openly?
If I see a guy carrying openly, I'm thinking the likelihood of the guy being a "bad guy" is actually less than if I don't see a gun.
If I'm a bad guy, I'm gonna conceal.

The whole line of opposition to the Amendment is wrong. IMO

Thank you! My sentiment exactly.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not going into private conversations, but hopefully people can see the problem with this provision. Remember, I said earlier that there was a reason the Dutton Amendment was stripped in committee rather than having this debate on the floor. An amendment would have been offered to strip it and there are people who will line up to speak against it. Now, Huffines has created precisely the problem sought to be avoided and he's too proud to pull it down so HB910 can be voted.

Chas.

I understand sir, thanks!