I'd sure hate to have my butt chewed on by her. By the time she got finished with everything she wanted to say I would forget what she started chewing me out for in the first placeAJSully421 wrote:Only two breaths on the secretary's vote roll call. They already know how everyone is going to vote.
SB11 brief update
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: SB11 brief update
Re: SB11 brief update
He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.
Any idea why?
Re: SB11 brief update
Why's that?Bladed wrote:He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.
Any idea why?
Re: SB11 brief update
The Texas Constitution says that each bill must be read on three separate days. In order to suspend the "constitutional three-day rule" and conduct the third reading on the same day as the second reading, four-fifths of the members present (25 of 31) must vote to suspend the rule.CJD wrote:Why's that?Bladed wrote:He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.
Any idea why?
Re: SB11 brief update
Thanks!Bladed wrote:The Texas Constitution says that each bill must be read on three separate days. In order to suspend the "constitutional three-day rule" and conduct the third reading on the same day as the second reading, four-fifths of the members present (25 of 31) must vote to suspend the rule.CJD wrote:Why's that?Bladed wrote:He would have needed 25 votes to get final passage today.RHenriksen wrote:Birdwell requested the vote for final passage postponed until tomorrow.
Any idea why?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 9315
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:13 pm
- Location: Arlington
Re: SB11 brief update
Well, since I missed everything after the break, I'll wait to read the amendments until it comes out in the Senate Journal. Don't know how they all voted either. That'l come later.
BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Diplomacy is the Art of Letting Someone Have Your Way
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380
TSRA
Colt Gov't Model .380
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 9
- Posts: 1436
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: SW Fort Worth
Re: SB11 brief update
There was a bunch of stupid bull, and of course, gun show loop hole was tossed in. They never give up. Neither should we.joe817 wrote:Well, since I missed everything after the break, I'll wait to read the amendments until it comes out in the Senate Journal. Don't know how they all voted either. That'l come later.
BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964
30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.
NRA, LTC, School Safety, Armed Security, & Body Guard Instructor
30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.
NRA, LTC, School Safety, Armed Security, & Body Guard Instructor
Re: SB11 brief update
Realize that it did not pass the Senate yet, they basically just voted on what its final senate form will be.joe817 wrote:Well, since I missed everything after the break, I'll wait to read the amendments until it comes out in the Senate Journal. Don't know how they all voted either. That'l come later.
BUT..it passed! "Passed to engrossment as amended". Here's all the details I can find for now:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See Bladed's post above -- the bill still needs its third reading before it can be voted out of the Senate, and I hope that comes today.
But yesterday's vote was something to celebrate.
ETA: SB11 is indeed listed for its third reading on today's Senate Calendars.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
____________
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm
Re: SB11 brief update
I couldn't help myself. I made two calls yesterday, one to Whitmire's office and one to Rodriguez. Both had touched on the odd argument that drunkenness keeps college kids from being able to think and remain lawful. True, of course, but there are kids, hopefully a lot of them, that maintain a more sober outlook on life.
I called expressing concern over what was being discussed regarding campus carry. I was calm and polite.
The Democrat position is that college kids are too drunk to think. Since they're too drunk to handle guns, don't allow CHL campus carry.
So, I continued, our hope for the future is so drunk they can't think straight. Clearly, the drinking age must be raised. Thankfully the gun debate has illuminated the foggy condition of these young minds. I suggested raising the drinking age to 26, but an overachiever in the Senate might prefer 30.
Democrats clearly believe in the sanctity of law, and that laws against things cures harmful behavior. The Democrat position is the root problem with campus carry isn't guns, it's Shiner Bock. It would be political suicide to raise the drinking age, but if it would save just one child, wouldn't the Senator gladly trade his political future to save a Mother's grief?
Both staffers took the time to discuss the logic with me, and both agreed that if college kids were too drunk to handle guns, they were too drunk to be in an environment with biohazards in labs, medical facilities where lives were on the line, and their inebriated course performance was jeopardizing America's future.
We can't have campus carry because of drunkenness, Democrat Senators will not stand by while children are being harmed, a common sense law to raise the drinking age would cure the problem, no political career is worth even one Mother's grief, and they agree raising the drinking age to 26 would cure the problem by the power and glory of legislation. But they aren't going to commit political suicide.
At that point I suggested the moral conundrum was easily solved. Just support campus carry for license holders who have gone through three tiers of background checks, have a history of sober, responsible behavior, and are members of a demographic not prone to endangering anyone.
Unfortunately, that would probably make too much sense.
I called expressing concern over what was being discussed regarding campus carry. I was calm and polite.
The Democrat position is that college kids are too drunk to think. Since they're too drunk to handle guns, don't allow CHL campus carry.
So, I continued, our hope for the future is so drunk they can't think straight. Clearly, the drinking age must be raised. Thankfully the gun debate has illuminated the foggy condition of these young minds. I suggested raising the drinking age to 26, but an overachiever in the Senate might prefer 30.
Democrats clearly believe in the sanctity of law, and that laws against things cures harmful behavior. The Democrat position is the root problem with campus carry isn't guns, it's Shiner Bock. It would be political suicide to raise the drinking age, but if it would save just one child, wouldn't the Senator gladly trade his political future to save a Mother's grief?
Both staffers took the time to discuss the logic with me, and both agreed that if college kids were too drunk to handle guns, they were too drunk to be in an environment with biohazards in labs, medical facilities where lives were on the line, and their inebriated course performance was jeopardizing America's future.
We can't have campus carry because of drunkenness, Democrat Senators will not stand by while children are being harmed, a common sense law to raise the drinking age would cure the problem, no political career is worth even one Mother's grief, and they agree raising the drinking age to 26 would cure the problem by the power and glory of legislation. But they aren't going to commit political suicide.
At that point I suggested the moral conundrum was easily solved. Just support campus carry for license holders who have gone through three tiers of background checks, have a history of sober, responsible behavior, and are members of a demographic not prone to endangering anyone.
Unfortunately, that would probably make too much sense.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
- Location: Austin
Re: SB11 brief update
I hate when they bring the whole "students are too young and drunk" argument. First, most (if not all) drinking occurs at parties off-campus. Are there any campuses that allow alcohol consumption on their premises? CHL holders are already allowed to carry on campus, just not in the buildings, so they can already carry while tailgating. It's already illegal to carry while intoxicated.
Let's not forget that this isn't just 21-22 year olds this law is affecting. It affects people who go back to school later in life, as well as faculty, staff, and visitors.
CHL holders are the most law abiding sub-demographic in the state. They can be trusted off campus and on the sidewalks and roadways of a campus, but the minute they step into a campus building, they cannot be trusted.
Let's not forget that this isn't just 21-22 year olds this law is affecting. It affects people who go back to school later in life, as well as faculty, staff, and visitors.
CHL holders are the most law abiding sub-demographic in the state. They can be trusted off campus and on the sidewalks and roadways of a campus, but the minute they step into a campus building, they cannot be trusted.
Keep calm and carry.
Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.
Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.
Re: SB11 brief update
PassedBigGuy wrote:Third reading on SB11.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 8
- Posts: 1201
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
- Location: Austin
Re: SB11 brief update
TVGuy wrote:PassedBigGuy wrote:Third reading on SB11.
http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929
Keep calm and carry.
Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.
Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 551
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:01 pm
- Location: Fort Worth
Re: SB11 brief update
Passed, this is great as it is an issue that affects me directly. I sure hope is grinds is way through the house. I attend a large university in the DFW area and I have seen multiple accounts of violent acts on and around campus with female students being the most targeted. I would sure like to see these women (and men) have a means to defend themselves.
CHL/LTC instructor
NRA basic pistol/home firearm safety instructor.
NRA basic pistol/home firearm safety instructor.
Re: SB11 brief update
Texas Senate sends campus gun bill to House
“[Opt-out] is certainly not something that I would support, and I know Allen doesn’t support it, but let’s let the House do its business, and we’ll see what comes back,” Birdwell said.
Fletcher’s legislation, House Bill 937, is awaiting a committee vote after an almost five-hour hearing earlier this week. The House Homeland Security Committee may take up HB 937 when it meets Tuesday.