SB17 Referred to House Homeland Security & Public Safety

[Ian]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/history.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=SB17

I know you all have been waiting for SOMETHING to finally happen during this stalemate between the House and Senate bills. Looks like the House gave in and started SB17 moving again.

Doesn't appear to be a date set when it will be heard yet.

 

[77zach]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/history.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=SB17

I know you all have been waiting for SOMETHING to finally happen during this stalemate between the House and Senate bills. Looks like the House gave in and started SB17 moving again.

Doesn't appear to be a date set when it will be heard yet.

What does this mean? The amendment clarifying that the 4th amendment and settled law applies when openly carrying a gun will be scrapped? Sounds like there may be more than a few republican senators who are anti OC.

 

[solus]

first, as stated previously, thanks for keeping those of us who lack the legislative knowledge (or just have no political clue) up to date on the OC legislative gauntlet...

but i'm confused...what happened to hb 910 as this sb17 appears to relate to the same OC concepts?

i was under the perception the hb 910 would be sent to joint committee to work out the differences between the two bodies then on to the governor who i know is busy staving off a perceived federal takeover by US Armed Forces in June.

is this a different bill, tho originally tabled, being thrown into the fracas?

thanks again...

ipse

 

[stealthyeliminator]

The amendment "prohibiting" detentions isn't necessary, in my opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, it didn't make violation an offense or provide any sort of penalty, anyway. Without the amendment, technically the same restrictions apply to officers, since even without the amendment it'd still be unlawful for them to detain someone just to ask for a license just because they're OCing.

solos, I think the answer to your question is basically yes. The House and the Senate both passed their own "versions" of licensed OC, HB 910 and SB 17, respectively. I believe the question then became whether the House would give in and take up the Senate's bill or if the Senate would give in and take up the House's bill. Apparently, it's a big deal, some kind of political game. Perhaps it's a matter of the authors of each bill wanting it to be the bill "they authored" that passes so they can mark it a personal victory for years to come, or something. I think that it will indeed be considered "landmark" legislation to them.

 

[Ian]

Essentially what happened from what I understand is the Senate passed SB 17 before the House passed HB 910 through committee. They were a little salty about that which is why we haven't really heard or seen anything since HB 910 passed. Yes, it's pretty childish for people who claim that this is a priority, but that's just how politics work. If the House passes SB 17 as is, then it goes to the Governor. The House can add their own amendments from HB 910 to SB 17, but then it will have to go back to the Senate and those new amendments will have to get passed by them as well before going to the Governor.

 

[77zach]

The amendment "prohibiting" detentions isn't necessary, in my opinion. Unless I'm mistaken, it didn't make violation an offense or provide any sort of penalty, anyway. Without the amendment, technically the same restrictions apply to officers, since even without the amendment it'd still be unlawful for them to detain someone just to ask for a license just because they're OCing.

This is correct in theory. However, Georgia recently felt that it was necessary to change their laws because enough ignorant, useless, power tripping cops were violating the law with impunity.