I hate those amendments. Especially the first one but would rather it pass with amendments than not pass.
11:13p, 5/5/21
In reply to tamc93
LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.Quote:
Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
11:22p, 5/5/21
In reply to SPC Backpacker
I guess I would hope the two would work together for the benefit of LEO.
Plus a true 2A bill would not have other limitations on where you can carry and/or the age you can carry.
Plus a true 2A bill would not have other limitations on where you can carry and/or the age you can carry.
FJB, FPA, and FAZ
11:57p, 5/5/21
In reply to SPC Backpacker
This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.
We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.
There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.
It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.
SPC Backpacker said:LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.Quote:
Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.
We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.
There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.
It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.
1:07a, 5/6/21
In reply to tamc93
what is your source because the last point is incorrect. An amendment that would do that was proposed by the dems but it was defeated as were a multitude of other poison pill amendments. LE will legally need probable cause to stop you.tamc93 said:Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:tamc93 said:
What were the amendments they added to the house bill?
Will the house support?
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
NO AMNESTY!
in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things; by pretending "not to know" there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience. Denial of truth allows easier trespass.
in order for democrats, liberals, progressives et al to continue their illogical belief systems they have to pretend not to know a lot of things; by pretending "not to know" there is no guilt, no actual connection to conscience. Denial of truth allows easier trespass.
1:31a, 5/6/21
In reply to BCStalk
I've never actually heard of anyone failing the class. I'm sure they're out there, but I've never heard of it.BCStalk said:
We had a lady in ours that shot the ground a couple times. Her shooting was not terrible once she figured it out, but it seemed that she had little to no practice. Looking at her target she probably passed. I'm assuming she had her finger on the trigger at low ready but I couldn't see from where I was standing.
Sponsor
4:17a, 5/6/21
In reply to Tim Weaver
We've had a couple. One was a gross safety violation. The other... still bugs me. Simply a case of "we don't trust you enough to let you finish." Someone out there undoubtedly passed him but a few very suspect questions had me actually stopping the class and booting him.Tim Weaver said:I've never actually heard of anyone failing the class. I'm sure they're out there, but I've never heard of it.BCStalk said:
We had a lady in ours that shot the ground a couple times. Her shooting was not terrible once she figured it out, but it seemed that she had little to no practice. Looking at her target she probably passed. I'm assuming she had her finger on the trigger at low ready but I couldn't see from where I was standing.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
6:22a, 5/6/21
In reply to AggiePetro07
What did Huffman have to say?
AggiePetro07 said:
That is Joanie. Me likey so far.
What did Huffman have to say?
6:37a, 5/6/21
In reply to TheEyeGuy
I don't blame you for doing what you thought was right but this is exactly why we need CC.
My rights shouldn't depend on the feelz of an instructor.
TheEyeGuy said:We've had a couple. One was a gross safety violation. The other... still bugs me. Simply a case of "we don't trust you enough to let you finish." Someone out there undoubtedly passed him but a few very suspect questions had me actually stopping the class and booting him.Tim Weaver said:I've never actually heard of anyone failing the class. I'm sure they're out there, but I've never heard of it.BCStalk said:
We had a lady in ours that shot the ground a couple times. Her shooting was not terrible once she figured it out, but it seemed that she had little to no practice. Looking at her target she probably passed. I'm assuming she had her finger on the trigger at low ready but I couldn't see from where I was standing.
I don't blame you for doing what you thought was right but this is exactly why we need CC.
My rights shouldn't depend on the feelz of an instructor.
7:25a, 5/6/21
In reply to ChipFTAC01
She was asking some good questions that would lead the sponsor to elaborate on why CC isn't anything but a chance for freedom for law-abiding citizens and not a catalyst for more criminals to START carrying. Basically, don't criminals already carry? Only law-abiding citizens follow the law? Shouldn't we help empower the law-abiding citizens because of that?ChipFTAC01 said:AggiePetro07 said:
That is Joanie. Me likey so far.
What did Huffman have to say?
8:19a, 5/6/21
In reply to Daddy-O5
This bill has passed the House and has been sent to the Senate. House Bill No.957
I am not a lawyer, simply passing on what I have heard.
My understanding is that a suppressor manufactured in Texas and is only used within the boundaries of the state will no longer require a stamp. I probably would not use mine on Federal land within the state either.J_Daddy05 said:4 said:
There is also a suppressor bill making it's way through. It proposes to remove the tax stamp requirement and (I believe) the extended application process for purchasing suppressors.
Eye guy will undoubtedly know more about this one, but I'm rooting for it.
This would be amazing if true.
ETA: and would cost me a crapton of money.
This bill has passed the House and has been sent to the Senate. House Bill No.957
I am not a lawyer, simply passing on what I have heard.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
8:23a, 5/6/21
In reply to CactusThomas
OK, so I get your point - but I think people need to be free to not do business with anyone they want.
If gun dealers were allowed to reject any sale they wanted, without worry of discrimination suits, I suspect there'd be fewer "baby mamas" buying guns for thugs, etc.
If gun dealers were allowed to reject any sale they wanted, without worry of discrimination suits, I suspect there'd be fewer "baby mamas" buying guns for thugs, etc.
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor."
8:26a, 5/6/21
In reply to ghollow
Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) History for HB 957
87(R) HB 957 - Engrossed version (texas.gov)
I'm about to google, but anyone know if this would apply to any of the current major suppressor manufacturers?
That's generally how it appears to me.ghollow said:My understanding is that a suppressor manufactured in Texas and is only used within the boundaries of the state will no longer require a stamp. I probably would not use mine on Federal land within the state either.J_Daddy05 said:4 said:
There is also a suppressor bill making it's way through. It proposes to remove the tax stamp requirement and (I believe) the extended application process for purchasing suppressors.
Eye guy will undoubtedly know more about this one, but I'm rooting for it.
This would be amazing if true.
ETA: and would cost me a crapton of money.
This bill has passed the House and has been sent to the Senate. House Bill No.957
I am not a lawyer, simply passing on what I have heard.
Texas Legislature Online - 87(R) History for HB 957
87(R) HB 957 - Engrossed version (texas.gov)
I'm about to google, but anyone know if this would apply to any of the current major suppressor manufacturers?
8:56a, 5/6/21
In reply to Fishin Texas Aggie 05
From my understanding of a quick reading, it removes restriction of "manufacturing" as long as it has the "Made in Texas" clearly stamped. I didn't deep dive but it sounds pretty dang promising.Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:
would this include homeade cans as well?
9:36a, 5/6/21
In reply to 4
LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.
*I'm a lawyer, but not your lawyer. This is not legal advice and an attorney-client relationship does not exist between you and me*
4 said:SPC Backpacker said:LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.Quote:
Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.
We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.
There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.
It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.
LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.
*I'm a lawyer, but not your lawyer. This is not legal advice and an attorney-client relationship does not exist between you and me*
10:22a, 5/6/21
With regard to the LEO's stopping you because you are open carrying - here's what happens. And this is pretty universal anywhere and everywhere you go.
If you are an average looking person that is just doing whatever it is you are doing and happen to have a pistol in a holster on your hip, or you are dressed in work gear with a nice 1911 or other similarly expensive well kept pistol on your hip - odds are the LEO is going to do exactly what everybody here will do - watch you for a few moments, make a quick determination after doing some basic profiling and leave you be.
Now if you are in a heated argument or you are walking around with your pants around your knees and the hi-point is stuck in your boxer waist band and you have neck tats and gold teeth - they are going to spend a lot more time watching and profiling you and may even find an excuse to stop you to have a quick talk.
I've been in a convenience store where there were half a dozen burly bearded guys wearing camo and every one of us carrying openly and the LEO getting coffee didn't bat a single eye at the crowd or waste a second of his time asking anybody any questions about their firearms or why we were carrying. It ends up being all about what you expect it to be - where you are located, what you are acting like, what you look like and how you are carrying yourself more than anything else.
And odds are that most of the OC you will see will be in more rural areas anyway and not in urban environments. That has been my experience far and away, and more rural LEO's don't bother nearly as much as a police officer working in the 5th Ward in Houston or wherever in Dallas or anywhere inside the loop in San Antonio would simply because of .....well, the nature of the beast.
If you are an average looking person that is just doing whatever it is you are doing and happen to have a pistol in a holster on your hip, or you are dressed in work gear with a nice 1911 or other similarly expensive well kept pistol on your hip - odds are the LEO is going to do exactly what everybody here will do - watch you for a few moments, make a quick determination after doing some basic profiling and leave you be.
Now if you are in a heated argument or you are walking around with your pants around your knees and the hi-point is stuck in your boxer waist band and you have neck tats and gold teeth - they are going to spend a lot more time watching and profiling you and may even find an excuse to stop you to have a quick talk.
I've been in a convenience store where there were half a dozen burly bearded guys wearing camo and every one of us carrying openly and the LEO getting coffee didn't bat a single eye at the crowd or waste a second of his time asking anybody any questions about their firearms or why we were carrying. It ends up being all about what you expect it to be - where you are located, what you are acting like, what you look like and how you are carrying yourself more than anything else.
And odds are that most of the OC you will see will be in more rural areas anyway and not in urban environments. That has been my experience far and away, and more rural LEO's don't bother nearly as much as a police officer working in the 5th Ward in Houston or wherever in Dallas or anywhere inside the loop in San Antonio would simply because of .....well, the nature of the beast.
10:52a, 5/6/21
In reply to The Wonderer
Of course they can. They may not state the ACTUAL reason, but they will have one, and unless you are stupid, you aren't going to argue with them about it.
I guess you could try to, but that belligerence alone gives them legitimate reason to cuff you.
Real world, yes they can. And they do, but generally not with clean, responsible looking and acting people.
The Wonderer said:4 said:SPC Backpacker said:LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.Quote:
Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.
We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.
There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.
It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.
LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.
Of course they can. They may not state the ACTUAL reason, but they will have one, and unless you are stupid, you aren't going to argue with them about it.
I guess you could try to, but that belligerence alone gives them legitimate reason to cuff you.
Real world, yes they can. And they do, but generally not with clean, responsible looking and acting people.
Sponsor
10:55a, 5/6/21
In reply to 4
Audit the Audit does make for some rather entertaining watching on youtube though. Even better when you jump deeper into the sovereign citizen ideology.4 said:The Wonderer said:4 said:SPC Backpacker said:LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.Quote:
Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.
We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.
There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.
It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.
LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.
Of course they can. They may not state the ACTUAL reason, but they will have one, and unless you are stupid, you aren't going to argue with them about it.
I guess you could try to, but that belligerence alone gives them legitimate reason to cuff you.
Real world, yes they can. And they do, but generally not with clean, responsible looking and acting people.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
11:06a, 5/6/21
Having not read the entire post and having no intentions to open carry, where does the concealed carry carte blanche stand? Still in deliberations?
Nobody cares. Work Harder
11:32a, 5/6/21
In reply to BlueSmoke
This covers all type of carry. Was not just for open carry. As far as I know
11:50a, 5/6/21
In reply to 4
Bad cops can stop you for any reason, real or imagined.4 said:The Wonderer said:4 said:SPC Backpacker said:LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.Quote:
Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:
- House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
- One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
- Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.
---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.
I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.
I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.
This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.
We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.
There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.
It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.
LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.
Of course they can. They may not state the ACTUAL reason, but they will have one, and unless you are stupid, you aren't going to argue with them about it.
I guess you could try to, but that belligerence alone gives them legitimate reason to cuff you.
Real world, yes they can. And they do, but generally not with clean, responsible looking and acting people.
Sponsor
3:32p, 5/6/21
In reply to [removed post]
And this shouldn't change when it comes into effect anyways, as long as it does get on his desk. Usually doesnt go into effect until Sept or JanSasappis said:BlueSmoke said:
Having not read the entire post and having no intentions to open carry, where does the concealed carry carte blanche stand? Still in deliberations?
The senate approved the bill yesterday but added amendments to the bill. It now has to go through some procedural steps with the house on the amendments.
It will likely end up on Abbotts desk but it is not done yet.
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
3:36p, 5/6/21
In reply to TheEyeGuy
Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.
The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln.
11:07a, 5/7/21
In reply to agsalaska
"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."
https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-tx-gun-rights-says-lt-gov-dan-patrick-added-poison-pill-to-constitutional-carry-bill/agsalaska said:
Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.
"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."
11:10a, 5/7/21
In reply to samurai_science
Guess he needs to be added to the list. Who is a good candidate to replace him that I can support?samurai_texan said:https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-tx-gun-rights-says-lt-gov-dan-patrick-added-poison-pill-to-constitutional-carry-bill/agsalaska said:
Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.
"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."
11:12a, 5/7/21
In reply to txags92
A potatotxags92 said:Guess he needs to be added to the list. Who is a good candidate to replace him that I can support?samurai_texan said:https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-tx-gun-rights-says-lt-gov-dan-patrick-added-poison-pill-to-constitutional-carry-bill/agsalaska said:
Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.
"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."
11:13a, 5/7/21
In reply to txags92
That article reads like clickbait bs, unless they can specifically point out the amendment in question.
11:13a, 5/7/21
In reply to The Wonderer
I'd prefer somebody with a chance to defeat him.The Wonderer said:A potatotxags92 said:Guess he needs to be added to the list. Who is a good candidate to replace him that I can support?samurai_texan said:https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-tx-gun-rights-says-lt-gov-dan-patrick-added-poison-pill-to-constitutional-carry-bill/agsalaska said:
Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.
"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."
11:20a, 5/7/21
In reply to maverick2076
Look, Patrick is no friend to gun owners, but I only like to deal in facts.
Agreed. Why not point out which amendment? Unless it's all blustering because you want to seem like the hero "overcoming this anti-gun action from Patrick".maverick2076 said:
That article reads like clickbait bs, unless they can specifically point out the amendment in question.
Look, Patrick is no friend to gun owners, but I only like to deal in facts.
Sponsor
11:22a, 5/7/21
In reply to samurai_science
Looking through things, first off that article is being uber vague. I did some digging and it has to do with some obscure rule. Thing is, I can't find in the amendments where it would be. Has to do with changing the subject of the bill....samurai_texan said:https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-tx-gun-rights-says-lt-gov-dan-patrick-added-poison-pill-to-constitutional-carry-bill/agsalaska said:
Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.
"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
11:25a, 5/7/21
In reply to samurai_science
I am not sure I would rush to blame Patrick for the amendments or the procedural roadblock they may impose...House Republicans should appeal the ruling of the chair. And word has it that a compromise around the issue may have already been worked out.
Sponsor
11:26a, 5/7/21
It's called a non-germane amendment.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/nongermane_amendment.htm
https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/nongermane_amendment.htm
Owner of Texian Firearms:
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015
Dealer in Firearms, Optics, Night Vision and other shooting accessories.
US importer/distributor of Rudolph Optics
Supporting bad financial decisions since 2015