TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This has been the worst legislative session I've seen in 35 years. This includes the years when Democrats were in control, but that was also at a time when there were pro-gun Democrats.

Chas.

Democrats, misguided, soul-sucking, anti-freedom as they are, at least have the integrity and self-respect to say: I recognize the principles and platform of the Democratic Party, and I support them.

Unfortunately, RINO's have no such integrity nor self-respect. If one of them is in charge, the whole organization suffers.

casp625 wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

casp625 wrote:

viking1000 wrote:Senate Bill 11

I still don't see where it is eligible at 7:40pm...
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 150529.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After the eligible at 7:40 section is the "Senate requests conference committee" section. SB11 is listed there.

In other words, the House needs to appoint conferees and then a conference committee must come to an agreement and then file the conference report. That clears the confusion being addressed here.

Yeah, I'm on my phone. My old eyes just missed the line JohnBoy pointed out. Guess I got overly excited.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

casp625 wrote:

viking1000 wrote:Senate Bill 11

I still don't see where it is eligible at 7:40pm...
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 150529.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After the eligible at 7:40 section is the "Senate requests conference committee" section. SB11 is listed there.

Oh, sorry. Makes more sense. :-(

K5GU wrote:On SB 11, the conference committee has not filed and distributed a report yet, so I don't think it could be eligible yet.

I agree...but it's showing on the calendar.

Actually both bills are showing eligible at 7:40 tonight in the House!!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thechl wrote:Didn't we just celebrate the passing of SB273? Isn't that a bill that merely reiterates current Texas law, but then adds a penalty because municipalities are ignoring that law with impunity?

Not really. There has never been a prohibition on governmental entities posting 30.06 signs; they were simply unenforceable. Now it is unlawful to do so.

Chas.

This site has been an enormously educational resource that I have enjoyed over the last three legislative sessions. Thank you, not only for the website, but also for the insight you freely share.

And thank you to all the members here who also share their knowledge, wit and frustration, usually with decorum.

Frankly, I don't care if the Huffine amendment is included or not, since I believe it is redundant to a major principle of the 4th Amendment. However, for law enforcement to act like this is some sort of a slap at their integrity is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion.

Didn't we just celebrate the passing of SB273? Isn't that a bill that merely reiterates current Texas law, but then adds a penalty because municipalities are ignoring that law with impunity?

I have spoken (in a very friendly manner) with a couple law enforcement officers in my town about the unenforceable 30.06 signs that are splayed on most city buildings. Their response is that they have a perfect right to post the sign "for public safety." When they are informed that there is a preemption issue, the discussion ends. The signs remain.

Alas....