TexasCHLforum.com

They evidently were as it passed with the same Amendment, different author. Perhaps over strategized. Just my thoughts which are known to occasionally be errant.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Overthehill wrote:Thank you Senator Huffman for stripping the House Amendment and starting us on the road to failure. Pass it as the House originally sent it and voila it is done. Send it back without the Dutton Amendment and we are in the same place. Headed to conference committee. At least the Dems stand up and fight to the end, unlike some of the Republicans we just saw bail in the face of possible bad liberal press coverage.

What if she knew the votes to bring HB910 up for debate on the Senate Floor weren't there, if the Bill came out of committee with the Dutton amendment still in it?

Chas.

If HB910 comes out of Conference clean without the amendment, does this still have a chance?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

v7a wrote:Presumably Republicans will be passing universal background checks next session. Because not to do so would be a slap in the face of law enforcement.

Now that's really helpful. Sincerely, thank you so much.

Deferring to the wishes of law enforcement is the cause of many of California's anti-gun laws (which passed with LEO support after LEO were exempted from the laws, such as the "Safe Handgun Roster" and ban on >10rd magazines). I'm simply suggesting it's not a good idea for Texas Republicans to be so willing to defer to law enforcement.

Overthehill wrote:But they voted for the Dutton Amendment. Huffines was the same as the one they approved. So maybe they never meant for it to pass in the first place as they possessed no logical reason to change their vote. Just how it appears from here.

The Dutton amendment came out of the blue and it wasn't debated for more than a couple of minutes. Then, predictably, the law enforcement community took offense and the backlash was huge. The Senate knew this, Huffines knew it and that's why the amendment was stripped in the Senate State Affairs Committee. There were not going to be 19 votes to consider HB910, if it came out of committee with the amendment intact.

To people who want to blame anyone other than Huffines, I hope you kept up with information and hints I was giving about HB910 and SB11. I can't ever tell everything I know, but people who have been following the Forum for a few legislative sessions know that when I make statements about risks, those statements are based upon facts, not conjecture or supposition.

HB910 isn't dead, but it certainly has one foot in the grave, a grave dug by Huffines, Grisham and OCT.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Paragrouper wrote:

sugar land dave wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thank you CJ Grisham/OCT and Sen. Huffines for setting up HB910 to be filibustered. The amendment provided no protection in the real world and it may well have killed open-carry. People can argue pro and con on the merits of the amendment until the Second Coming, but the fact is it may have killed the bill.

To those who care only about making a point, rather than a difference, I hope you're happy. Mount your high horse, pontificate for hours, but make sure you keep your handgun concealed while you do so. This is what happens when people who don't know what they are doing try to get involved in legislation that carries with it a high degree of emotion.

Chas.

Charles,

How many times do they have to throw us under the bus? I seriously begin to question what if anything they bring to our party except grief, poor public relations, resentment from most of our political friends, and an unwillingness to take a 90 % win when it is there to be had.

When I hear their statements and observe their tactics it's apparent to be that they are driven by their own egos. Not only must they win, but it must be won their way so they can prove their importance. They drive division into a house that should be united, then blame others and make threats when the opposition exploits the division's they've created.

Very well put and dead on point!

Chas.

oh haven't you heard? Over at OCT C.J. is guarantying the bills will pass. Wonder what he'll say if they don't

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

v7a wrote:Presumably Republicans will be passing universal background checks next session. Because not to do so would be a slap in the face of law enforcement.

Now that's really helpful. Sincerely, thank you so much.

Deferring to the wishes of law enforcement is the cause of many of California's anti-gun laws (which passed with LEO support after LEO were exempted from the laws, such as the "Safe Handgun Roster" and ban on >10rd magazines). I'm simply suggesting it's not a good idea for Texas Republicans to be so willing to defer to law enforcement.

No, you made an absurd statement about universal background checks being the will of law enforcement.

Chas.

OK, so now what? Have they offically passed the budget bill yet? Can enough Republicans tank that so that Abbott is forced to call a special session, and then have him tack on OC and CC as well?

I'm assuming we won't get either through the conference process at this point, and that Abbott wouldn't call a special session just for OC/CC.

Would it help if Abbott broke his silence and said "I expect a CC and an OC bill on my desk by the end of session and you guys needs to get it done"?

I don't know, just grasping at straws here I guess.

jerry_r60 wrote:The thread on yesterday's house session got very long and has morphed into today's session. This thread is just to start clean for today's session - covering any action on gun bills, i.e. HB910 or SB11. We might even hear HB554.

Jerry, thanks for doing this thread. With bills this important to us, especially at twilight of the 84th session, there SHOULD be a new thread by day, by bill number to keep it from getting so confusing that we'd never sort it out. Thanks!

what nobody is talking about but what I'm seeing is that if HB910 dies then so does the $200 Class C misdemeanor for accidental 30.06 violations.

Charles, do you have any idea why Phillips didn't just move to table the Dutton amendment like he did the rest ?

This is not the greatest time for me to be posting, but I'll risk it anyway.

Anyone who wants to see gun rights continue to advance in Texas should avoid buying into the excuses being proffered by OCT apologists blaming anyone other than Huffines, Grisham and OCT. The "throw them all out" crowd are as destructive as OCT. To the COP-haters in our midst, you never win by insulting law enforcement in Texas. I don't care if you like it or not, that's the reality in the political/legislative world. The Legislature was/is willing to pass open-carry when many LEOs are concerned, but the unnecessary and ineffective Huffines amendment was one step too far. It was an insult and it gave anti-gunners like Sylvester Turner a bully pulpit to hammer the bill and force it into conference in the waning days of the session.

If HB910 dies, and it certainly may, it will be solely and exclusively Huffines' fault. He was told what would happen and he ignored it.

Chas.

Tracker wrote:what nobody is talking about but what I'm seeing is that if HB910 dies then so does the $200 Class C misdemeanor for accidental 30.06 violations.

That will be a bigger loss than open-carry.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:No, you made an absurd statement about universal background checks being the will of law enforcement.

Even if for the sake of argument the majority of Texas LEOs don't support universal background checks today (I haven't seen any polling on the subject), that could very well change tomorrow (as more Acevedos move here). In any case, my point remains: Texas Republicans should prioritize the Bill of Rights over the wishes of law enforcement.

Don't get me wrong, though: blame belongs with Huffines et al.

Rick Harris wrote:Charles, do you have any idea why Phillips didn't just move to table the Dutton amendment like he did the rest ?

This is purely a guess, but if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't want to alienate but minority Members who may vote for my bill as well as conservatives who like the idea behind the amendment. Again, there wasn't two minutes debate and it wasn't until after HB910 passed that everyone saw the backlash.

Again, that's pure speculation on my part.
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:what nobody is talking about but what I'm seeing is that if HB910 dies then so does the $200 Class C misdemeanor for accidental 30.06 violations.

That will be a bigger loss than open-carry.

Chas.