TexasCHLforum.com

HB1911 Committee Substitute (removes Belt/Shoulder holster requirement ... etc etc so that Ankle/thigh Holsters, Swimsuit holsters, Bra Holsters, Corset Holsters etc etc are ok too ) in House Cmtee now http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=3051
About to vote on it... in Homeland Security Committee
6 Ayes 2 Nays
Passed out of Committee Printed to put on Calendar, recommend Passage in House

NotRPB wrote:HB1911 Committee Substitute (removes Belt/Shoulder holster requirement ... etc etc so that Ankle/thigh Holsters, Swimsuit holsters, Bra Holsters, Corset Holsters etc etc are ok too ) in House Cmtee now http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=3051
About to vote on it... in Homeland Security Committee
6 Ayes 2 Nays
Passed out of Committee Printed to put on Calendar, recommend Passage in House

assuming that the bill passes through committee, what is the process that it has to go through by May 29 in order to become law?

I assume that it has to be presented to the House and will likely be tabled, then eventually come up for a vote, and if it passes the house then goes to the Senate to be presented, and given a period of time for review before it's voted on?

Is it possible that it doesn't make it up for a vote in the Senate before May 29? And then what would happen to it? Just dead in the water?

The big question from my perspective is what this version of the bill contains. There were at least 2 substitutes from what I can tell. I guess the only thing to do is wait.

Stripes Dude wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:This is a flaw with unlicensed carry and federal law. To fix this issue you would have to go to the federal level and correct the problem there.

I'll get excited about this when that is dealt with.

At minimum, we need an unofficial mandate to federal LEO like what was done in the pot legalization states (don't arrest for pot possession).

I could be mistaken, but I believe that some LEO's carry while off duty. If those folks don't currently have LTC's, then they are likely violating the GFSZA on a regular basis, unless they have no schools in their neighborhood. That should be an indication of the likelihood of getting cited for a violation.

I have an LTC, but even if I didn't, I likely wouldn't be all that concerned about this until we get the first arrest for a violation (that is not tacked on to more serious charges). As far as I know, this has not happened yet.

Did the bill pass committee? Will the speaker allow the House to vote in it? Is there any reason to expect problems in the Senate?

allisji wrote:Did the bill pass committee? Will the speaker allow the House to vote in it? Is there any reason to expect problems in the Senate?

Reported favorably as substituted 04/18/2017

Passed committee yesterday.
Someone more on the inside will need to address the rest of your questions.

RoyGBiv wrote:

allisji wrote:Did the bill pass committee? Will the speaker allow the House to vote in it? Is there any reason to expect problems in the Senate?

Reported favorably as substituted 04/18/2017

Passed committee yesterday.
Someone more on the inside will need to address the rest of your questions.

I'll add that it must first get to the Senate, then it must pass the Senate. More miles are in front of the Bill than behind it.

Chas.

To add to the above, you can check bill status on TLO. Updates may be delayed a few days, but it gives a view of progress and the road ahead.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1911

The last part of the press release talks about adding due process back to the system. The way I read it, you can petition a judge and get your license when it had been denied due to offences you have no conviction of. Does this mean that Deferred Adjudication won't block licenses if this passes?

apostate wrote:To add to the above, you can check bill status on TLO. Updates may be delayed a few days, but it gives a view of progress and the road ahead.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1911

Thanks, that's a nice resource

Russell wrote:It is my understanding that unfortunately they removed the 30.08 signage from this latest version of the bill, so it'll be impossible for us to track locations that prohibit constitutional carry. :-(

30.05 restrictions (Gunbusters) will be all it takes to prevent unlicensed carry.

So why not track it that way? People submit locations that have "gunbuster" signs and you list it separately from the 30.06/07 signs. What is my simple mind missing in being able to do that?

I have not seen the committee substitute that was ultimately voted out of committee. It was changed after the version I worked on was in final form. I'm not attacking anyone for that, as I'm sure there were reasons for the changes. It is my belief that there were significant amendments, so I will be interested to see the latest version.

Chas.