TexasCHLforum.com

This is all good as a whole. We may not have gotten the big prize, but we got a good start. I think it will be easier to modify and improve it in subsequent sessions.

So, our legislature who so strongly supports property rights that they insist that businesses completely open to the public have the right to ban any type of legal gun carry are requiring private universities to participate in concealed carry in areas only accessible to university ID badged staff and students (areas closed to the general public).
I'm so confused.

Watch for Amendments to be laid out today on 3rd reading ...mmm

I know of 1, which made me groan

A bill may be amended again on third reading, (but amendments at this stage require a two-thirds majority for adoption.) http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully all rejected except those acceptable to Authors/Sponsors.

We aren't quite done yet folks ... Stay tuned.... Listen to Charles.

mojo84 wrote:I thought it would never pass with Straus as speaker. Now I wonder if he was on board or if he was overridden by the 26 and didn't have a choice.

No. He let it pass (as he knew it would). But he allowed some poison pill amendments in before closing the barn door. Upholding the 'deal', the Senate passed HB910 with only a few words changed (which didn't significantly alter the bill). When time came to honor their end, the House drastically altered SB11 and put forward a gutted and poisoned bill. This is ALL on Strauss. He can claim he "passed the bill", but the bill he let through is a shell of what was put forth.

The Speaker said last night before shutting down that they would be on the Local, consent, and resolutions calender today. SB 11 and HB 910 aren't on it. All Senate bills.

jmra wrote:So, our legislature who so strongly supports property rights that they insist that businesses completely open to the public have the right to ban any type of legal gun carry are requiring private universities to participate in concealed carry in areas only accessible to university ID badged staff and students (areas closed to the general public).
I'm so confused.

What he said.

Local, consent, and resolutions calender may not take all that long.

jmra wrote:So, our legislature who so strongly supports property rights that they insist that businesses completely open to the public have the right to ban any type of legal gun carry are requiring private universities to participate in concealed carry in areas only accessible to university ID badged staff and students (areas closed to the general public).
I'm so confused.

This is the poison pill.

But I've been reading through the amendments and I don't see this. But IANAL, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Unless it's in those bits where it changes some language and instead refers to the TX Code.

NotRPB wrote:Watch for Amendments to be laid out today on 3rd reading ...mmm

I know of 1, which made me groan

A bill may be amended again on third reading, (but amendments at this stage require a two-thirds majority for adoption.) http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully all rejected except those acceptable to Authors/Sponsors.

We aren't quite done yet folks ... Stay tuned.... Listen to Charles.

Could it be amended to remove the "poison pill" concerning private campuses?
I'd take the gutted version and call it progress, plus it might have a better chance for the Senate to concur.
With a few good years of successful campus carry under our belt we could relax the "restrictive portions" in the future.

jmra wrote:So, our legislature who so strongly supports property rights that they insist that businesses completely open to the public have the right to ban any type of legal gun carry are requiring private universities to participate in concealed carry in areas only accessible to university ID badged staff and students (areas closed to the general public).
I'm so confused.

This. I had a long post a few months back wondering why we allow commercial businesses to exclude licensed CHL holders, in light of all the other property "rights" they already give up. So I'm not averse to the concept, just wonder if this is the best place to start the implementation.

If we're going to go down this path with private colleges, tie it to acceptance of state funding.

That said, it's a poison pill that a super majority should have never been forced into accepting.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:For those curious:

https://twitter.com/MorganSmith/status/ ... 5839986688" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Stickland is on there, yall... Just sayin.

Yes, and I didn't hear him yesterday shooting us in the foot so i'll give him credit for that. It will be nice if he learns from this session and gets better.

XinTX wrote:

jmra wrote:So, our legislature who so strongly supports property rights that they insist that businesses completely open to the public have the right to ban any type of legal gun carry are requiring private universities to participate in concealed carry in areas only accessible to university ID badged staff and students (areas closed to the general public).
I'm so confused.

This is the poison pill.

But I've been reading through the amendments and I don't see this. But IANAL, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Unless it's in those bits where it changes some language and instead refers to the TX Code.

It's in amendment one. The amendment removed language so you have to go back to the original bill and see the text that is removed by the amendment.

NotRPB wrote:Watch for Amendments to be laid out today on 3rd reading ...mmm

I know of 1, which made me groan

A bill may be amended again on third reading, (but amendments at this stage require a two-thirds majority for adoption.) http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully all rejected except those acceptable to Authors/Sponsors.

We aren't quite done yet folks ... Stay tuned.... Listen to Charles.

I'm guessing the 2/3 vote requirement will hold off bad amendments however are we once again up against a clock that can be run out with endless amendments?

Color me confused...I thought that it has passed, which would mean after third reading? Is it still due for the third reading, or did it pass???

jerry_r60 wrote:

NotRPB wrote:Watch for Amendments to be laid out today on 3rd reading ...mmm

I know of 1, which made me groan

A bill may be amended again on third reading, (but amendments at this stage require a two-thirds majority for adoption.) http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully all rejected except those acceptable to Authors/Sponsors.

We aren't quite done yet folks ... Stay tuned.... Listen to Charles.

I'm guessing the 2/3 vote requirement will hold off bad amendments however are we once again up against a clock that can be run out with endless amendments?

If so we go "nuclear option" again...worked last night!