The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
To pass tomorrow, HB 972 would need 25 votes instead of 21. If Birdwell can't secure 21 votes today, he's not likely to secure 25 tomorrow.artx wrote:Isn't tomorrow still a possibility (or am I reading the calendar wrong here)http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/De ... lendar.pdfbaldeagle wrote:Looks like campus carry (HB 972) will die again this session. You young pups will have to take up the torch. I give up.
Looks like they're doing cleanup now before adjourning for the night.
That's how it works. The people who support a bill try to get it passed. The people who oppose it try to kill it. One side succeeds, and the other side fails.Owens wrote:"For all intents and purposes, HB 972 is dead......"
If thats the case, there are some folks currently in Austin that deserve to be staked to an ant hill. This is ridiculous....Again!
Well, we still have the cryptic comments by Whitmire http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/politi ... 536483.phpOwens wrote:"For all intents and purposes, HB 972 is dead......"
If thats the case, there are some folks currently in Austin that deserve to be staked to an ant hill. This is ridiculous....Again!
Wasn't there a "Get campus carry added to the special session!" call to action in 2009 and another one in 2011?artx wrote:Rick Perry has been the best friend we've ever had as govenor....maybe we can get campus carry added to a special session, if there is already going to be one for another issue.
Charles, I submit that Senator Birdwell would be the perfect sponsor for the bill. Here's what he had inserted in the Senate Journal regarding the vote on HB 508.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Governor can't send it back. If he vetoes it, it's a major loss for Texas CHLs! The Carona amendment will be used to our advantage in 2015.TxLobo wrote:Thank you sir..
somehow, I'm not that surprised.. but somewhere in the deep recesses of my mind, I remember the Gov saying that he would like to see it where every CHL holder could carry anywhere... So maybe he will send this one back to them to fix..
Chas.
If Birdwell sponsors it, he has the high moral ground, and he can present it as an attempt to correct a terrible injustice done to the citizens by their legislators.Senator Birdwell submitted the following reason for vote on HB 508:
Today, I voted against House Bill 508, which would prohibit a state agency or political subdivision from providing false notice to a CHL-holder that entering certain government premises with a concealed handgun is prohibited. Though I initially supported the bill, I ultimately voted against it due to the addition of an amendment allowing CHL-holding elected officials to carry their firearms in all locations prohibited to regular citizens. Though I am an unwavering proponent of Second Amendment rights, I could not in good conscience grant myself a privilege that I had failed to first grant law-abiding citizens. Concealed Handgun License holders are allowed to carry almost everywhere they go. In my judgment, if we are going to expand when and where Texans can legally carry a concealed firearm, we should start with our citizens–not our lawmakers.
BIRDWELL
The Bill Status Report on http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is up to date now and I'll be publishing a report when the session is over.texanjoker wrote:is there a list anywhere of what they actually accomplished?
I keeping with our practice of starting on the next session at the end of the ongoing one, we've already selected a Senate sponsor. (You knew this was coming, but . . . sorry, it's a secret.) He's the perfect one to carry the bill.baldeagle wrote:Charles, I submit that Senator Birdwell would be the perfect sponsor for the bill.
Please consider another possibility. Those who blocked HB972 were blocking 508 until the Carona admendment was added. HB508 is a major bill folks; it's impact should not be underestimated. Losing it would be far more significant than not passing HB972 in terms of the number of people impacted by its protections.Owens wrote:Charles, it may be helpful in 2015, but for now it does nothing more than irritate the begeebees out of a bunch of people that are fed up with the "good for me and not for thee" attitude. It don't feed the bulldog today!
Just playing a hunch here, but those that voted for that corona ammendment are probably the same ones that prevented 972.
