TexasCHLforum.com

This has taken me by surprise! They are discussing it right now. Not familiar with the bill.

Going to 2nd reading.

Charles, care to share?

Not companion to HB308, this is related to government buildings erroneously posting 30.06.

Passed to engrossment! Well, that didn't take long!

CJD wrote:Not companion to HB308, this is related to government buildings erroneously posting 30.06.

Yes, I caught that. Thank you.

joe817 wrote:This has taken me by surprise! They are discussing it right now. Not familiar with the bill.

Going to 2nd reading.

Charles, care to share?

Libs were walking up because they had no clue what the bill was or what it did. Passed it before they could do anything about it.

NOW ON TO CAMPUS CARRY!!!

AJSully421 wrote:

joe817 wrote:This has taken me by surprise! They are discussing it right now. Not familiar with the bill.

Going to 2nd reading.

Charles, care to share?

Libs were walking up because they had no clue what the bill was or what it did. Passed it before they could do anything about it.

NOW ON TO CAMPUS CARRY!!!

Or it was a plea deal...the political capital thing we have discussed?

I don't see an engrossed version nor any amendments listed at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB273" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

It does not appear the bill was amended to include private causes of action (at least as I understand the term). All complaints have to go through the AG, who will decide whether to pursue them or not.

This is still a good bill, but it would be a lot more interesting if individuals could take the offending government entity straight to court.

ELB wrote:This is still a good bill, but it would be a lot more interesting if individuals could take the offending government entity straight to court.

Imagine what would happen if an individual could take the entity to court, Kory and CJ would have a new line of business......

I see the bill was substituted by the State Affairs Committee to include a requirement that a citizen wishes to file a complaint with the AG must first provide a notice to the offending entity and give them three business days to cure the violation. Other than that, the bill is the same as the one Sen Campbell introduced.

ELB wrote:I see the bill was substituted by the State Affairs Committee to include a requirement that a citizen wishes to file a complaint with the AG must first provide a notice to the offending entity and give them three business days to cure the violation. Other than that, the bill is the same as the one Sen Campbell introduced.

House companion bill (HB 226) out of Homeland Committee and sent to Calendars.

Referred to Homeland Security and Public Safety!

CJD wrote:Referred to Homeland Security and Public Safety!

Should zoom right through

mr1337 wrote:

CJD wrote:Referred to Homeland Security and Public Safety!

Should zoom right through

I wonder, though, what this means for the question of whether they were waiting to see if it needed to be amended for 30.07.

To be honest I see this as being stage one of a three stage effort:
Stage 1: Liability for improper government postings of 30.06
Stage 2: Private causes of action
Stage 3: Liability for arrests made in regards to improper postings anywhere

I would love to get it all this session, especially the private causes of action, but I am willing to do what I can.

AJSully421 wrote:

joe817 wrote:This has taken me by surprise! They are discussing it right now. Not familiar with the bill.

Going to 2nd reading.

Charles, care to share?

Libs were walking up because they had no clue what the bill was or what it did. Passed it before they could do anything about it.

NOW ON TO CAMPUS CARRY!!!

Hope you're right....