TexasCHLforum.com

910 is on the calendar for Friday the 17th.

stash wrote:I keep seeing it may or will go back to the floor Fri. Somebody here late last week indicated that nothing usually gets done on Fri. because it is a travel day for the legs. that do not live in the close proximity to Austin.

Presumably the closer we get to the end of the session, the more Fridays they work. In any case, if Democrats want to leave town this Friday that just means less clowns to speak against the bill on the floor

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.

But wouldn't a change from requiring a CHL versus Not requiring a CHL trigger a germaneness debate? The terms "..person who is licensed.." are in the caption. Also see, Texas Constitution, Article 3, "Sec. 30. LAWS PASSED BY BILL; AMENDMENTS CHANGING PURPOSE. No law shall be passed, except by bill, and no bill shall be so amended in its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose."

I can just imagine Stickland's 162 amendments:

Amendment 1: Exempt people whose first name starts with J from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 2: Exempt people whose last name starts with S from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 3: etc...

Are the people who voted for Stickland aware that this Friday he'll be acting as Bloomberg's useful idiot?

v7a wrote:I can just imagine Stickland's 162 amendments:

Amendment 1: Exempt people whose first name starts with J from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 2: Exempt people whose last name starts with S from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 3: etc...

Are the people who voted for Stickland aware that this Friday he'll be acting as Bloomberg's useful idiot?

I'm not sure, but I personally find it ironic that OCT's own man may be "standing in the way of Open Carry" by killing it with amendments. If that is the case I will expect them to honor their promise of running a candidate in the primary of everyone who stood in the way of Open Carry.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

MadMonkey wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Good (I guess) but I really hope the focus is on campus carry which would potentially impact many more CHL holders.

How does campus carry impact more CHL holders? SB 17 impacts all CHL holders and 11 impacts teachers and students.

11 impacts far more people who would use it.

Cite?

Cite what? This will will allow legally licensed CHLers to carry in buildings on campus, thus potentially preventing a mass murder on campus as has occurred in the past.

The OC provision is relevant to far less people because very few people will use OC.

The OC bill is fine but more capital should be focused on a bill more people will use.

Disagree. Campus carry has zero impact on me. OC is my interest, not campus carry. You are entitled to your opinion on course.

v7a wrote:I can just imagine Stickland's 162 amendments:

Amendment 1: Exempt people whose first name starts with J from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 2: Exempt people whose last name starts with S from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 3: etc...

Are the people who voted for Stickland aware that this Friday he'll be acting as Bloomberg's useful idiot?

Does the House have a procedural option to "move the previous question" similar to Roberts Rules of Order. If so, how many votes are required to invoke it? Simple majority? Two thirds? Other?

My guess is HB 910 will be called, I between 10:30 and 11:30 AM Friday. I will watch the cast from my computer.

Pass the bill............!!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.

Isn't that what Sen. Huffines did and it was voted down soundly?

I'm torn between the bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush. I understand strategically that licensed OC is the path of least resistance and seems poised to pass & be signed into law. It is an improvement over current law so I support it. On the other hand, I'm glad that Rep. Stickland and Sen. Huffines are asking the question "Why should the state be involved in this exercise of a constitutional right at all?" If only more lawmakers at all levels asked such questions!

As much of a tough spot as it might put those in who support licensed OC but not unlicensed or constitutional carry, we have a governor who seems to have said he'll sign any of the above. Taking him up on that offer is awfully tempting.

I don't know what I would do as a member but as a Texan and CHLer, the only way I can lose would be for some poison pill to be attached to the bill and not even get licensed OC. If something restoring even more liberty makes it into law, so much the better.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.

Isn't that what Sen. Huffines did and it was voted down soundly?

I'm torn between the bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush. I understand strategically that licensed OC is the path of least resistance and seems poised to pass & be signed into law. It is an improvement over current law so I support it. On the other hand, I'm glad that Rep. Stickland and Sen. Huffines are asking the question "Why should the state be involved in this exercise of a constitutional right at all?" If only more lawmakers at all levels asked such questions!

As much of a tough spot as it might put those in who support licensed OC but not unlicensed or constitutional carry, we have a governor who seems to have said he'll sign any of the above. Taking him up on that offer is awfully tempting.

I don't know what I would do as a member but as a Texan and CHLer, the only way I can lose would be for some poison pill to be attached to the bill and not even get licensed OC. If something restoring even more liberty makes it into law, so much the better.

SA-TX

The problem is that unlicensed OC could be that poison pill that kills this bill, but that is not what many are worried about. What most folks are worried about is the fact that he reportedly has 162 amendments ready to be offered for this bill and simply voting each and everyone of them down along with killing all the anti-gun amendments will delay this bill to the point that we could see it die. Time is not on our side here, and the extremist positions from both ends are seemingly joining forces to delay this bill to death as well as any other pro-gun measures.

G.A. Heath wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.

Isn't that what Sen. Huffines did and it was voted down soundly?

I'm torn between the bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush. I understand strategically that licensed OC is the path of least resistance and seems poised to pass & be signed into law. It is an improvement over current law so I support it. On the other hand, I'm glad that Rep. Stickland and Sen. Huffines are asking the question "Why should the state be involved in this exercise of a constitutional right at all?" If only more lawmakers at all levels asked such questions!

As much of a tough spot as it might put those in who support licensed OC but not unlicensed or constitutional carry, we have a governor who seems to have said he'll sign any of the above. Taking him up on that offer is awfully tempting.

I don't know what I would do as a member but as a Texan and CHLer, the only way I can lose would be for some poison pill to be attached to the bill and not even get licensed OC. If something restoring even more liberty makes it into law, so much the better.

SA-TX

The problem is that unlicensed OC could be that poison pill that kills this bill, but that is not what many are worried about. What most folks are worried about is the fact that he reportedly has 162 amendments ready to be offered for this bill and simply voting each and everyone of them down along with killing all the anti-gun amendments will delay this bill to the point that we could see it die. Time is not on our side here, and the extremist positions from both ends are seemingly joining forces to delay this bill to death as well as any other pro-gun measures.

With a legislator pulling stunts like that, who needs enemies when he seems to want to mess things up all by himself? If he wrecks what amounts to a pretty good chance to advance some serious pro-firearms legislation, with Republicans in control of the whole kit and kaboodle, then I hope when his term is up, he finds himself looking for a new line of work.

Open carry and (to a lesser degree) campus carry are on the fast track for passage this session. And because of the antics of OCT and OCTC, these are likely to be the bills that pass to the exclusion of almost every other gun rights bill. So when the constitutional carry crowd gets riled up about licensed oc and starts putting up road blocks, they're not just hurting the bill that's being discussed. They are actually causing us to lose ground. So much effort has been expended getting licensed oc and campus carry through the process that better bills (HB 308 - removing most of the off limits places for CHLs, and SB 273 - imposing a penalty for gov't entities posting unenforceable 30.06 signage) are stalled. Once again, the all or nothing option results in nothing.

G.A. Heath wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.

I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...

I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.

Isn't that what Sen. Huffines did and it was voted down soundly?

I'm torn between the bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush. I understand strategically that licensed OC is the path of least resistance and seems poised to pass & be signed into law. It is an improvement over current law so I support it. On the other hand, I'm glad that Rep. Stickland and Sen. Huffines are asking the question "Why should the state be involved in this exercise of a constitutional right at all?" If only more lawmakers at all levels asked such questions!

As much of a tough spot as it might put those in who support licensed OC but not unlicensed or constitutional carry, we have a governor who seems to have said he'll sign any of the above. Taking him up on that offer is awfully tempting.

I don't know what I would do as a member but as a Texan and CHLer, the only way I can lose would be for some poison pill to be attached to the bill and not even get licensed OC. If something restoring even more liberty makes it into law, so much the better.

SA-TX

The problem is that unlicensed OC could be that poison pill that kills this bill, but that is not what many are worried about. What most folks are worried about is the fact that he reportedly has 162 amendments ready to be offered for this bill and simply voting each and everyone of them down along with killing all the anti-gun amendments will delay this bill to the point that we could see it die. Time is not on our side here, and the extremist positions from both ends are seemingly joining forces to delay this bill to death as well as any other pro-gun measures.