TexasCHLforum.com

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

safety1 wrote:

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

soooo....what now? Both Chambers must vote right??
When?????

mr1337 wrote:

safety1 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

FormerTSgt wrote:

Ruark wrote:According to:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 10#vote759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conference committee report has been filed! Does anybody have any details?

That seems... fast. If they agreed on changes then it now has to pass the Senate and the House, correct? If that's so then the filibuster will kill it. Huffines ruined open carry for Texas. Others share some blame, but most of it can be laid squarely at his feet.

If it's moving this fast, it might not have a chance to get filibustered. Unless someone is determined enough to talk for a day or two. Perhaps that is the plan to get it through. I guess we'll see.

You may be onto something! I don't know what the record is for filibustering, but if we make it 24+ hours I don't see it happening.

Here's your answer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/po ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On May 2, 1977, Mr. Meier rose to speak on the floor of the Senate chamber in Austin at 3:20 p.m. He did not relinquish the floor and sit down until 10:20 a.m. on May 4, some 43 hours later. It remains the longest filibuster by an American politician in a state legislature or in Congress. Then a 36-year-old Democratic state senator, Mr. Meier stood and talked nearly continuously for about as long as it would take to drive from Manhattan to San Francisco without stopping.

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

Callaway wrote:Not sure if credible...

Chuck Lindell ‏@chucklindell 2m2 minutes ago
Sen. @DonHuffines says he is disappointed his police-stop amendment got cut but, "I'm going to go along with the will of the body." #txlege

Callaway wrote:Not sure if credible...

Chuck Lindell ‏@chucklindell 2m2 minutes ago
Sen. @DonHuffines says he is disappointed his police-stop amendment got cut but, "I'm going to go along with the will of the body." #txlege

Ruark wrote:

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

So if they didn't change anything, it goes back to a simple concurrence vote, right?

zajones08 wrote:Can the House take up SB 17 and pass it? Straight to the Governor?

LSUTiger wrote:Will HB910 pass?

http://www.ask8ball.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I got 2 most likely's, 1 ask again later and 1 outlook good.