TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:In your read-only bill update, Charles, you said it would be at 2 pm, 30 minutes "after adjournment." What does that mean? I wonder if that means it won't be on the live video broadcast.

There will be a live broadcast and it will begin at 2:00pm or when the House adjourns the session for that day, whichever is later.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

txglock21 wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:Out of curiosity if these pass and the Governor signs how quickly can/will they take effect?

September 1, 2015...(if I'm not mistaken).

Yep. The state fiscal year starts 9/1, so bills go into effect then, to synch with funding appropriations. They'll need that much time to address signage issues, police training, etc. anyway.

And it gives us time to have holsters made

There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Do you expect any of them have any traction?

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Do you expect any of them have any traction?

I don't know. The more ridiculous ones will not stick, but I don't know what all is going to be offered by Ellis and others.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Do you expect any of them have any traction?

I don't know. The more ridiculous ones will not stick, but I don't know what all is going to be offered by Ellis and others.

Chas.

Fair enough. I just thought you might be able to share some insight.

Thank you.

Ellis and those like him have the experience to find something that might get some traction. The good news is that many of those folks suffer from Second Amendment Derangement Syndrome where they simply loose their minds at the thought of someone regaining any part of their second amendment rights.

Many amendments will be offered with the hope that if enough gets thrown at the wall then something might actually stick to one bill or the other. From the senate testimony I think that Ellis will push for an external ID requirement and for retention holsters at a minimum.

SMH!

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Do you expect any of them have any traction?

I don't know. The more ridiculous ones will not stick, but I don't know what all is going to be offered by Ellis and others.

Chas.

Fair enough. I just thought you might be able to share some insight.

Thank you.

All I know specifically is one amendment will call for 10 hrs of additional training to carry openly and one will require some type of retention holster. There will be many more and you can bet some will come straight out of the looney bin.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Do you expect any of them have any traction?

I don't know. The more ridiculous ones will not stick, but I don't know what all is going to be offered by Ellis and others.

Chas.

Fair enough. I just thought you might be able to share some insight.

Thank you.

All I know specifically is one amendment will call for 10 hrs of additional training to carry openly and one will require some type of retention holster. There will be many more and you can bet some will come straight out of the looney bin.

Chas.

I can't even respond to this without breaking the ten year old rule.

Note to Charles:

Do you think anyone is going to throw up the "right to privacy" argument that if this bill passes it will in effect do away with right to sealed records on who has a CHL? What I mean is, in order to open carry you must have a CHL - so - if you do open carry you have a CHL and everyone now knows.

Before I get flamed....I know this is a ridiculous argument. All you have to do is not open carry....right? But you know how the anti's work!

I have been thinking about the "rights to privacy" certain things we do in life seem to give up that right by our own actions. My thoughts is that this would fall into the same category so if one is that concerned about others knowing that they have a CHL there is a clear alternative...... do not open carry.

Salty1 wrote:I have been thinking about the "rights to privacy" certain things we do in life seem to give up that right by our own actions. My thoughts is that this would fall into the same category so if one is that concerned about others knowing that they have a CHL there is a clear alternative...... do not open carry.

I too think the presence of an openly carried will be a clue one has a chl.

Starting on Senate floor:

http://tlcsenate.granicus.com/MediaPlay ... ent_id=929