Thanks. That article only lists 5 amendments one of which I don’t care for.
And the last sentence of the article is a bit concerning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The $$$ question... how many innocent people will some liberal somewhere cause to die between now and the governors signature in order to try and pressure politicians to NOT sign the bill. I'd stay on high alert if I was anywhere near a gun-free zone.Yeah, sort of. The bill goes back to the House for the final OK, which is no big deal. Once the House gives it's final approval, it goes to the Governor to sign.
Removing a clause allowing people, who in good faith carried a handgun into a prohibited place, to correct their mistake and leave the premises immediately without being subject to arrest;
Rep Schaffer has already agreed to all of the amendments that were offered and approved today. Sen Schwertner had the prep approved prior to submitting them. So the house will approve without a conference. It should go to the House and be voted on Monday or Tuesday. Then it takes about 3-5 days to enroll and transfer to th Govs desk. The gov will get 10 days to sign.
That’s only true sometimes. But it only goes to conference if the house won’t concur. The house will concurr
I think the two amendments that will cause problems in the House are: the creation of new signage and the instant criminalization of someone just walking into a premise that does not allow firearms and turning around once error is discovered. The House debated both issues long and hard and I believe the signage was offered as an amendment but either failed in vote or was withdrawn ( I forget). Those two amendments will cause issues with the bill because it can be argued they change the intent and scope of the House passed version ( a major procedural issue) and possibly sink it if it has to go to conference committee as the House may not agree to changes and just allow the bill to die in limbo.You seem confident and maybe you have an inside track but Schaefer seems to be concerned with some of the language in the amendments as does GOA according to the email I got last night.
Maybe that’s all lip service to keep the troops rallied?
I still don’t like the removal of the “oops clause”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I think the two amendments that will cause problems in the House are: the creation of new signage and the instant criminalization of someone just walking into a premise that does not allow firearms and turning around once error is discovered. The House debated both issues long and hard and I believe the signage was offered as an amendment but either failed in vote or was withdrawn ( I forget). Those two amendments will cause issues with the bill because it can be argued they change the intent and scope of the House passed version ( a major procedural issue) and possibly sink it if it has to go to conference committee as the House may not agree to changes and just allow the bill to die in limbo.
The bill may pass with this language just for the sake of not arguing about it. If so, it will probably be changed in a future session.
As to the signage issue, I think new signs are necessary if 30.06 and 30.07 are going to remain in effect. LTC holders are currently prohibited by these signs from carrying past them, but non-LTC's are not affected. So, if we are going to keep 30.06 and 30.07 there needs to be signs for non-LTC's. Or (my preference) just get rid of 30.06/30.07. Either way, something has to change on the sign issue.
The issue of instant criminalization for a good faith error of walking into a prohibited area is going to be a problem. The bill may pass with this language just for the sake of not arguing about it. If so, it will probably be changed in a future session.
I've never heard of that happening. Yeah, I imagine it would get ugly.Reality is LE issues the citation and it gets real ugly when a private business owner or their agent detains someone trying to leave the premises while waiting for LE to show up for a trespass violation.
I've never heard of that happening. Yeah, I imagine it would get ugly.
That said, I could imagine that the elimination of the good faith exception might be enough of a poison pill to kill this thing. I imagine that was the intent all along.
Had to explain to several security guards they can use force to kicknsomeone out, but they absolutely cannot prevent someone from leaving who is trespassing.I've never heard of that happening. Yeah, I imagine it would get ugly.
That said, I could imagine that the elimination of the good faith exception might be enough of a poison pill to kill this thing. I imagine that was the intent all along.
GOA is concerned about it making it through the process.