Return to “HB 910 Conference Committee”
I was kidding folks.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?
Chas.
No, both the Speaker and Lt. Gov. knew that HB910 had to get to the floors of each body quickly to prevent the possibility of a filibuster.ScooterSissy wrote:Are you at liberty to say - was that part of some agreement - EG we'll work at getting the amendment gone, if you'll guarantee it will get an early vote?Charles L. Cotton wrote:No. The Bill came up too early for them to have a chance. It's 54 hours to the end of the session. (That was no accident.)mojo84 wrote:Were they just bluffing about the filibuster?
Chas.
No, though that may be prudent depending upon circumstances.Nano wrote:Will a retention holster be required with the new open carry law?
Now there's an idea for 2017! The MOMS will be going crazy, crazier than they are, that is.The Wall wrote:What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille?
The Bill would not have gotten out of committee if the Dutton amendment had not been stripped out.Overthehill wrote:Finally Texas catches up with all the other reasonable states. Kudos to all in both houses who held firm with a few demerits for she who deleted the amendment, he who added it back with changed wording and those who played politics to keep law enforcement unions happy.
All done now and even with the demerits all were there at the final push and I thank them all.
Nothing changed with amusement parks and churches. The only new language is underlined.louisf1 wrote:I may be wrong but it looks like they snuck in some other areas making churches and religious facilities off limits. Also looks like amusement parks are off limits without regard to the population of the city it's located in. See page 34 and 35 of the conference report. Tell me I'm wrong.AJSully421 wrote:louisf1 wrote:jmra wrote:I'm more excited about the change in the penalty and the fact that on Jan 1 all existing 30.06 signs have incorrect wording than I am about open carry itself.mulfjohn wrote:
Yee haaaaaw. It finally passed. Thanks to all that had input in this cause and thanks to the legislatures that pushed it through the house and Senate. Without their dedication and will power,we wouldn't have the option to choose between oc or not. Also the changing of the 30.06 penalty is awesome. Keep up the good work.
How do all 30:06 signs have improper wording? Was there a change to the wording?
Yep.
I don't know of any, but if there are convictions, they are very few in number. There's no separate category for §30.06 violations in the DPS crime stats, but the total number of convictions for unlawful carrying by a licensee is 16 in 2013.K5GU wrote:Yes! Speaking of that, do you have any stats on how many accidental 30.06 violations by CHL holders there have been to date, and approximately how much it cost to mitigate those violations?Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is more valuable than open-carry, in my view. 850,000+ CHL benefit from this protection from accidentally entering posted property.louisf1 wrote:What is truly amazing is that walking past a 30:06 sign unintentionally is now going to be a class C misdemeanor.DanD wrote:A truly amazing past 30 minutes. Truly amazing.
Chas.
It's true.dru wrote:I.....I can't believe this has happened. Charles, is it true? Like, really really true? Someone pinch me. Our legislature actually accomplished a pro-gun bill that had real, substantive change in it
This is more valuable than open-carry, in my view. 850,000+ CHL benefit from this protection from accidentally entering posted property.louisf1 wrote:What is truly amazing is that walking past a 30:06 sign unintentionally is now going to be a class C misdemeanor.DanD wrote:A truly amazing past 30 minutes. Truly amazing.
It goes to the Governor.sig-sog wrote:So, HB910 has passed in both chambers? And it goes to the Governor right? Or is there more to come?
No. The Bill came up too early for them to have a chance. It's 54 hours to the end of the session. (That was no accident.)mojo84 wrote:Were they just bluffing about the filibuster?
He's a true gentleman, with far more patience than I possess.twomillenium wrote:Estes is not as well spoken as some, but he seems to get his point across.
As V7a noted, it is Senators Ellis and Rodriguez that have said they will filibuster, if it is close enough to the end of the session to have a chance at success. Neither body would start a filibuster now with 54 hours left in the session.Ruark wrote:Why didn't the antis filibuster it? I thought that proclaimed that was what they were going to do.
The Senate does the same thing. Probably tomorrow morning.safety1 wrote:What now?
I can't wait to see the record vote on the resolution for an out of bounds. I'm pretty sure Stickland voted against it, especially in light of his abandoned attempt to call a point-of-order.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did I see Stickland vote "no?"
Chas.