I agree with what others have said regarding the difference between these bills. I will only add that I did ask a question about the reconciliation of two bills that pass with conflicting language. For example, one passing that says new chl and renewals get reduced course hours and the other bill eliminating the need for a renewal course all together. Chalres did respond to that thread, see below.G26ster wrote:The bills' languages do conflict. SB 864 has a training requirement for renewals, while HB 48 does not. The only thing I've read is that the "latest" one passed takes precedence, but I've only read that on another forum, and was looking for someone here, like Mr. Cotton, to confirm that.Bladed wrote:This was discussed in another thread. The most recent bill passed takes precedence in any area of conflict; however, there is no major area of conflict between these two bills. SB 864 primarily deals with an initial CHL course, and HB 48 primarily deals with renewals.G26ster wrote:I'm confused by SB 864 "effective 1 Sep 2013" and HB 48 "sent to the Governor." Each has different renewal requirements. How can they both become law?
Here was my question and the answer from Charles in another thread:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:You are correct. When two bills pass in the same session that impact the same area of the law, they must be reconciled. So SB864 creates a single class for both new and renewal students that is 4 to 6 hours long, but HB48 removes the need to take that class to renew a CHL. It's when two bills are conflicting that you must look to the times each passed. There is no irreconcilable conflict between SB864 and HB48, but if there were, then we would have the same result. HB48 passed after SB864, so the provisions of HB48 would control to the extent they were in conflict with anything in SB864. (Sorry for the lawyer-like answer. )jerry_r60 wrote:I understood HB48 as you have described however I was confused on how to apply it in context of SB 864 also passing, which lowered requirments of the class but still had them (as I understand it). Is it as simple as SB 864 definging a course (for initial application and renewal) and then HB 48 saying you don't need to take that course? Does SB 864 get applied and then HB 48 comes behind it and nullifys it for renewals?Charles L. Cotton wrote:HB48 that removes the necessity of taking a class to renew a Texas CHL passed today. It now goes to the Governor.