TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:Only two breaths on the secretary's vote roll call. They already know how everyone is going to vote.

I'd sure hate to have my butt chewed on by her. By the time she got finished with everything she wanted to say I would forget what she started chewing me out for in the first place

RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.

Any idea why?

He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.

Bladed wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.

Any idea why?

He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.

Why's that?

CJD wrote:

Bladed wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.

Any idea why?

He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.

Why's that?

The Texas Constitution says that each bill must be read on three separate days. In order to suspend the "constitutional three-day rule" and conduct the third reading on the same day as the second reading, four-fifths of the members present (25 of 31) must vote to suspend the rule.

Bladed wrote:

CJD wrote:

Bladed wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.

Any idea why?

He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.

Why's that?

The Texas Constitution says that each bill must be read on three separate days. In order to suspend the "constitutional three-day rule" and conduct the third reading on the same day as the second reading, four-fifths of the members present (25 of 31) must vote to suspend the rule.

Thanks!

Well, since I missed everything after the break, I'll wait to read the amendments until it comes out in the Senate Journal. Don't know how they all voted either. That'l come later.

BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

joe817 wrote:Well, since I missed everything after the break, I'll wait to read the amendments until it comes out in the Senate Journal. Don't know how they all voted either. That'l come later.

BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a bunch of stupid bull, and of course, gun show loop hole was tossed in. They never give up. Neither should we.

joe817 wrote:Well, since I missed everything after the break, I'll wait to read the amendments until it comes out in the Senate Journal. Don't know how they all voted either. That'l come later.

BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Realize that it did not pass the Senate yet, they basically just voted on what its final senate form will be.

See Bladed's post above -- the bill still needs its third reading before it can be voted out of the Senate, and I hope that comes today.

But yesterday's vote was something to celebrate.

ETA: SB11 is indeed listed for its third reading on today's Senate Calendars.

I couldn't help myself. I made two calls yesterday, one to Whitmire's office and one to Rodriguez. Both had touched on the odd argument that drunkenness keeps college kids from being able to think and remain lawful. True, of course, but there are kids, hopefully a lot of them, that maintain a more sober outlook on life.

I called expressing concern over what was being discussed regarding campus carry. I was calm and polite.

The Democrat position is that college kids are too drunk to think. Since they're too drunk to handle guns, don't allow CHL campus carry.

So, I continued, our hope for the future is so drunk they can't think straight. Clearly, the drinking age must be raised. Thankfully the gun debate has illuminated the foggy condition of these young minds. I suggested raising the drinking age to 26, but an overachiever in the Senate might prefer 30.

Democrats clearly believe in the sanctity of law, and that laws against things cures harmful behavior. The Democrat position is the root problem with campus carry isn't guns, it's Shiner Bock. It would be political suicide to raise the drinking age, but if it would save just one child, wouldn't the Senator gladly trade his political future to save a Mother's grief?

Both staffers took the time to discuss the logic with me, and both agreed that if college kids were too drunk to handle guns, they were too drunk to be in an environment with biohazards in labs, medical facilities where lives were on the line, and their inebriated course performance was jeopardizing America's future.

We can't have campus carry because of drunkenness, Democrat Senators will not stand by while children are being harmed, a common sense law to raise the drinking age would cure the problem, no political career is worth even one Mother's grief, and they agree raising the drinking age to 26 would cure the problem by the power and glory of legislation. But they aren't going to commit political suicide.

At that point I suggested the moral conundrum was easily solved. Just support campus carry for license holders who have gone through three tiers of background checks, have a history of sober, responsible behavior, and are members of a demographic not prone to endangering anyone.

Unfortunately, that would probably make too much sense.

I hate when they bring the whole "students are too young and drunk" argument. First, most (if not all) drinking occurs at parties off-campus. Are there any campuses that allow alcohol consumption on their premises? CHL holders are already allowed to carry on campus, just not in the buildings, so they can already carry while tailgating. It's already illegal to carry while intoxicated.

Let's not forget that this isn't just 21-22 year olds this law is affecting. It affects people who go back to school later in life, as well as faculty, staff, and visitors.

CHL holders are the most law abiding sub-demographic in the state. They can be trusted off campus and on the sidewalks and roadways of a campus, but the minute they step into a campus building, they cannot be trusted.

Third reading on SB11.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929

BigGuy wrote:Third reading on SB11.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929

Passed

TVGuy wrote:

BigGuy wrote:Third reading on SB11.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929

Passed

Passed, this is great as it is an issue that affects me directly. I sure hope is grinds is way through the house. I attend a large university in the DFW area and I have seen multiple accounts of violent acts on and around campus with female students being the most targeted. I would sure like to see these women (and men) have a means to defend themselves.

Texas Senate sends campus gun bill to House

“[Opt-out] is certainly not something that I would support, and I know Allen doesn’t support it, but let’s let the House do its business, and we’ll see what comes back,” Birdwell said.

Fletcher’s legislation, House Bill 937, is awaiting a committee vote after an almost five-hour hearing earlier this week. The House Homeland Security Committee may take up HB 937 when it meets Tuesday.