TexasCHLforum.com

Of course you are right; many Democrats do support 2A rights.

Unfortunately most Democrat politicians seem to be out of synch with the majority on this issue. And her aide did say she didn't support the bill. So I should have said “Unfortunately she is a Democrat Politician”.

Not every Democrat is the spawn of Satan, but Ms. Davis was F-rated with no voting record as of November 2008.

I think it's equally important to let your representatives know when you disagree and when you agree with them.

- Jim

This quote from an Austin American-Statesman blog post is worth noting:

Ronald Thomas, a retired UT-Austin police lieutenant, called to say that not all officers agree. Thomas favors allowing concealed handguns on campus because, he said, an armed person could prevent or cut short a tragedy well before campus police arrive at the scene.

It's nice to see someone refuting the assertion that HB 1893 and SB 1164 are universally opposed by campus police officers (most of whom have little or no experience dealing with CHL holders, spend their days dealing with the worst of the college community, and--most significantly--work for regents who vehemently oppose the bills).

seamusTX wrote:Not every Democrat is the spawn of Satan, but Ms. Davis was F-rated with no voting record as of November 2008.

I think it's equally important to let your representatives know when you disagree and when you agree with them.

- Jim

Douva wrote:This quote from an Austin American-Statesman blog post is worth noting:

Ronald Thomas, a retired UT-Austin police lieutenant, called to say that not all officers agree. Thomas favors allowing concealed handguns on campus because, he said, an armed person could prevent or cut short a tragedy well before campus police arrive at the scene.

It's nice to see someone refuting the assertion that HB 1893 and SB 1164 are universally opposed by campus police officers (most of whom have little or no experience dealing with CHL holders, spend their days dealing with the worst of the college community, and--most significantly--work for regents who vehemently oppose the bills).[/quote]


All VERY true statements. The campus PD at my location are scared shirtless over the concept of armed students/faculty/staff. One reason being that they have very little training involving real active shooter scenarios. The other point they brought up is that they "wouldnt know who the badguy is" when they walked into a hot scene. (of course, LEO in ALL other applications seem to understand that you have to ID your target..not just walk in and blast the guy with the gun)...so that makes little sense. It would be good of them to recognize that a properly trained, responsible, CHL holder isnt going to just start shooting or even necessarily HELP in the case of an active shooter. I know I am partially nervous to think about the day I have to use my gun in a self-defense scenario...because of the legal tie-ups, possible arrest, and 100 other possibilities that can go wrong. But I still choose to carry, and I know I WOULD be one of the ones running toward the gunfire to try and help those in harms way.

I hope to God this passes into law, without any rediculous, limiting amendments...and let us get on with it...and ONCE AGAIN prove the anti's wrong.

-scott

Senator Shapiro's office contacted.

Sen. Nichols and Rep. Hopson's offices have been contacted - again.

Douva wrote:As for the calendars, I still haven't figured out exactly how they work, but I know that it's not a simple list. I believe the official calendar is actually comprised of multiple calendars. Perhaps Charles or someone with a bit more lobbying experience can explain how the calendars work.

Okay, I figured it out. Everything on the Daily House Calendar that isn't reached before the House adjourns for the day is pushed to the next day's Supplemental House Calendar.

If you look at the Supplemental House Calendar for today (attached) you'll see that HB 1893 is on page 19 of 20. It's 8 PM, and the Legislature is half-way through page 4. I'm afraid I have to agree with Charles--it seems unlikely that HB 1893 is going to make it to the floor before time runs out at Midnight Thursday.

The smart play at this point is to focus on SB 1164. Everyone needs to work to convince their State Senators that SB 1164 deserves a floor vote.

I have contacted both Sen. Estes and Rep. Crownovers' offices.....

We just need a rule that all school finance bills go to the end of the line so that the Reps won't be distracted by other pending bills while they're debating and amending and amending and amending and amending such critical legislation.

^^^amen!!!!!

Douva wrote:

Douva wrote:As for the calendars, I still haven't figured out exactly how they work, but I know that it's not a simple list. I believe the official calendar is actually comprised of multiple calendars. Perhaps Charles or someone with a bit more lobbying experience can explain how the calendars work.

Okay, I figured it out. Everything on the Daily House Calendar that isn't reached before the House adjourns for the day is pushed to the next day's Supplemental House Calendar.

If you look at the Supplemental House Calendar for today (attached) you'll see that HB 1893 is on page 19 of 20. It's 8 PM, and the Legislature is half-way through page 4. I'm afraid I have to agree with Charles--it seems unlikely that HB 1893 is going to make it to the floor before time runs out at Midnight Thursday.

The smart play at this point is to focus on SB 1164. Everyone needs to work to convince their State Senators that SB 1164 deserves a floor vote.

We're on page 18 of 24 on tomorrow's supplemental calendar.

slightly off-topic... but...

I'm hoping someone in the legal profession or knowledgeable about the House can explain...Is there a reason that the reps dont stay and do this longer than they do? I mean, why cant they stay until all of the bills are heard/voted? This would eliminate the problem of people delaying and lollygagging around until they run out of time. And also allow ALL the bills that make it to that point to be heard and voted. Also, if the reps knew they were staying until ALL of the bills were heard, then they might be less inclined to purposely stall bills out of time.

scott_dfw wrote:slightly off-topic... but...

I'm hoping someone in the legal profession or knowledgeable about the House can explain...Is there a reason that the reps dont stay and do this longer than they do? I mean, why cant they stay until all of the bills are heard/voted? This would eliminate the problem of people delaying and lollygagging around until they run out of time. And also allow ALL the bills that make it to that point to be heard and voted. Also, if the reps knew they were staying until ALL of the bills were heard, then they might be less inclined to purposely stall bills out of time.

I suspect that the original intent was to make them work towards a deadline and avoid them loafing on the people's dime.

I thought they all were paid a (meager) salary? Sounds like they should work all the long hours they can, until everything is settled.