TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen wrote:conference committee report adopted by the full House!

JollyHappyDad wrote:On to the Senate

ScooterSissy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I agree with one small caveat - I don't think the will of the the few thousand law enforcement officers and officials should have been held in higher regard than that of 800,000+ CHL holders.

RHenriksen wrote:

JollyHappyDad wrote:On to the Senate

Okay, so... any notion of a) when the Senate will bring this to the floor for a vote, and b) how much resistance it'll get to get over the goal line?

RHenriksen wrote:Wow, is Ellis actually going to keep it short? Can't believe what I'm seeing