Restaurant Carry Bill: How To Help

[Guest JavaGuy]

While well meaning, I don't think all of the OP's information is 100% accurate.

Perhaps not, but it was a very good summary of the process at this point.

As of five minutes ago (roughly 5:35 PM 4/27/09), Sen. Jackson moved to refuse to recede from the Senate's action (passing HB0962 with a senate amendment tacked on removing the curfew and the age restrictions). Procedurally, the bill will be passed back to the House. The House essentially has one more chance to accept the Senate's amendment; if they choose to not accept the amendment, the bill will go to a conference committee.

Rep. Curry Todd will be one of the House members of the committee. Sen. Doug Jackson will be one of the Senate members. As the prime sponsors, that's pretty much a given. DJack might be correct on the other two House members... Wait and see...

Basically three things could happen in conference..

1) they agree to take the House version

2) they agree to take the Senate version

3) they come up with some kind of compromise...

It's not a guaranteed sure thing, but as a general rule, once a conference committee report is brought back to the chamber, the sponsor explains it and makes a recommendation for passage. That report (at this point, it's really a new amendment that will make the language of the bill) will be debated, but again, as a general rule, the chamber usually takes the recommendation of the sponsor and acts accordingly.

[Guest SomeGuy]

Java,

Are you sure this gives the House one more chance? If so, we can still win this. We need to make sure every member knows what to do, especially the at this moment unreliable Republicans.

[Guest JavaGuy]

Yes, I'm reasonably sure.

Chamber A passes the bill.

Chamber B passes a different version of the bill.

Chamber A has to concur or non-concur with Chamber B's version.

if they concur, it's all done. If they non-concur, it returns to Chamber B.

Chamber B can either recede from their action (placing the objectionable amendments on Chamber A's bill) or refuse to recede from their action.

If they recede from their action, the original bill is back in play. If they refuse to recede, then Chamber A gets one more chance to accept the changes.

If Chamber A refuses to recede from their action (not accepting the other chamber's actions), then you're off to conference committee.

Grin.. at least that is my understanding of the process.

Edited April 27, 2009 by JavaGuy
I hit the wrong button... and posted too soon.

[Fallguy]

Java,

Are you sure this gives the House one more chance? If so, we can still win this. We need to make sure every member knows what to do, especially the at this moment unreliable Republicans.

From what I've heard some legislators say, what the clerk of the house and what is has on the state's website....I don't think it would go back to the House again either.

If the Senate does not withdraw their changes, it goes to the confrence committee I believe.

I didn't know it was going to be discussed in the Senate today either.

It is not on the Bill's info page or on any of the Calendars for the Senate today.

[Fallguy]

Yes, I'm reasonably sure.

Chamber A passes the bill.

Chamber B passes a different version of the bill.

Chamber A has to concur or non-concur with Chamber B's version.

if they concur, it's all done. If they non-concur, it returns to Chamber B.

Chamber B can either recede from their action (placing the objectionable amendments on Chamber A's bill) or refuse to recede from their action.

If they recede from their action, the original bill is back in play. If they refuse to recede, then Chamber A gets one more chance to accept the changes.

If Chamber A refuses to recede from their action (not accepting the other chamber's actions), then you're off to conference committee.

Grin.. at least that is my understanding of the process.

From How a bill becomes law page on the state's website.

If a bill passes one house and is amended in the other, the bill goes back to the house where it was originally passed for action on the amendment. The first house may vote to concur or not to concur. If it concurs in the amendment(s), the bill follows through for the governor's approval; but if the first house refuses to concur, the bill goes back to the house where the amendment originated and the motion there is that that house recede or refuse to recede from its position in adopting the amendment(s). If there is a refusal to recede, it then becomes necessary to appoint conference committees, consisting usually of at least three members of each house, to meet and attempt to reconcile the differences between the two houses on the bill or to recommend a course of action agreeable to both houses.

It appears to say if the chamber that made the changes (Senate in this case) refuses to recede it goes to a confrence committe...not back to the chamber (House in the case) to first pass it.

[Guest JavaGuy]

Essentially, we're in a phase you might recognise from encounters on the playground as a child.

Chamber B. "You're a sissy." Senate passed the House bill, but with amendments.

Chamber A. "Oh yeah?" House votes to non-concur.

Chamber B. "Yeah!" Senate votes to not recede from their action (passing the amendments).

Chamber A. "Oh Yeah???" Next step.... House will have to vote to not recede from THEIR action.

Chamber A & B. "YEAH!!!" Conference committee appointed by the two speakers.

Even though the Legislature's website has steadily improved, it still takes time for real people to enter the actions and post the data. The other part of that is that sometimes, senators and representatives don't wait to put something onto a calendar.. and they ask the clerk if it's "on the desk."

Procedurally, bills move between the chambers in messages. When a few bills have accumulated, they will be placed on a message calendar. As noted above, if a bill is "on the desk", the legislator can ask to bring it up then instead of waiting for it to be placed onto a calendar.

[Fallguy]

The page is updated now to show the Senate refused to recede.

It says it can take them up to an hour to update it.

However I still don't think it goes back to the House again.

[Guest JavaGuy]

From How a bill becomes law page on the state's website.

It appears to say if the chamber that made the changes (Senate in this case) refuses to recede it goes to a confrence committe...not back to the chamber (House in the case) to first pass it.

Yep... I was wrong. It will be reported to the House that the Senate refused to recede from their actions.

Dang.. oh well.. Probably not the first mistake I've made today or the last.

Sorry to have posted incorrect info.

[Fallguy]

No worries....

I've noticed from some of the videos not even the legislators are sure of the all of the procedures....lol

[dralarms]

I just watched the video and the senator seems to think it goes back to the house as well.

[Guest JavaGuy]

We can all watch and see on Thursday...

H. Placed first on the Calendar for 4/30/09

[Guest JavaGuy]

I just watched the video and the senator seems to think it goes back to the house as well.

Yeah, that might account for part of my mistake.. I was listening to it live this afternoon. Jackson did state exactly that.

Grin.. still my mistake though. Why in the world would I believe a state senator?? Ha!

[Fallguy]

Hold the phone....

JavaGuy you may be right. I just watched the video of the Senate on this (listened actually for some reason the video didn't play). Sen Jackson said it would go back to the house for them to have one more chance or they could choose to send it to a confrence committee.

So assuming he is correct, it sound like Thursday the House could choose to accpet the Senate version one more time.

[Fallguy]

LOL....busy aren't we?

Guess we'll find out for sure on the 30th

[Guest JavaGuy]

I figure we'll find out for dead certain on Thursday. The link you posted earlier indicates that I was wrong... my belief was that both sides had to refuse to recede, the Senate refusing to recede from adding their amendment, the House refusing to recede from their non-concurrence with the Senate's amendment.

What I thought was that when the House refused to recede from non-concurrence, the speaker would appoint a conference committee and notify the Senate. Upon that notice, the Senate speaker would appoint members to the committee as well.

Grin. We'll find out on Thursday.

[Guest HexHead]

So basically, if the House tells the Senate to go to hell again, then it goes to committee where some compromise is worked out, then it goes back to the House (and Senate) again and if the bill doesn't have the two restrictions the House wanted and they don't accept it again, we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Do I have it right?

Sounds to me like the Senate are the ones ****ing us this time.

The longer this drags out, support lags in the House, Naifeh has more time to twist some arms and the Tennessean gets to run more inflammatory anti-gun articles. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DONE DEAL WEEKS AGO!!!

Edited April 28, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest SomeGuy]

Hexhead, you are wrong. The longer this drags out, the more we need to pressure our elected Reps. We can win this, contrary to your incessant naysaying belief. Stop crying for restrictions and fight, or please, join the Brady Group, you will fit in better with them begging for the government to restrict you.

Java, it may be that you were right. Either way, Thursday they will make the committee, or vote on taking the Senate version. We just need to keep the pressure up.

[Guest HexHead]

Hexhead, you are wrong. The longer this drags out, the more we need to pressure our elected Reps. We can win this, contrary to your incessant naysaying belief. Stop crying for restrictions and fight, or please, join the Brady Group, you will fit in better with them begging for the government to restrict you.

Java, it may be that you were right. Either way, Thursday they will make the committee, or vote on taking the Senate version. We just need to keep the pressure up.

I hope you're right, but it's not looking that way. The House originally passed the bill something like 70-26. Next time it came to them, 45-44 to non-concur. Sounds to me like it's losing support in the House and the longer it gets dragged out, the more time Neifeh gets to pull his shenanigans to derail it. Don't forget, we're not the only ones writing our Reps and Senators. Those moonbats that comment on the Tennessean are doing it as well.

I really want a restaurant bill to pass. Don't for a moment mistake my views. When I was 25, I was idealistic too and I understand you want a clean bill or nothing. Well, from where I'm sitting, it's looking like nothing is more likely than a clean bill. Problem with you kids, is you want everything NOW. Well the real world just doesn't always work that way.

And also from where I'm sitting, the TFA is doing us as much harm as the Bradys.

Edited April 28, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest SomeGuy]

Hex,

Your citation of the votes is not perfectly accurate. If you spent some time over at the TFA forums, you would see one of our members is a state Rep. He made good points regarding why some PROGUN reps voted yes instead of no. I don't totally agree, but to say it has lost support based on that is inaccurate.

If I had to choose between no bill, and a bill with the age restriction it is no secret where I would go. You make a foolish generalization regarding us young folk. I have refrained from making comments regarding cowardly old men for example. This is something you seem to casually ignore, we can win this, and have no restrictions (or if we had to compromise due to backstabbing, I see the curfew as being a minimal thing we can dispose of).

If you see the TFA as enemies in this fight, you are either sitting very far from the light, not paying attention at all, or on the opposing side. When was the last time you took a trip to Nashville and actually did some lobbying work? Or even called your State Rep? Emailed? Have you done anything more than sit here and attack those of us doing the work while braying for a restriction laden bill?

[Guest HexHead]

Or even called your State Rep? Emailed? Have you done anything more than sit here and attack those of us doing the work while braying for a restriction laden bill?

I email my State Rep. so often we're on first name basis now.

My Senator is Henry and I've never gotten so much as a reply from that doddering old fool. He must be spending too much time in the Honky Tonks.

So no, I don't just sit on here and complain.

And I'm obviously not the only one that sees the House support withering...

"Any way you consider it, the problems are in the House even with perceived Republican control ......

John Harris"

[Guest SomeGuy]

Hex, that quote is not new. That has been the issue pretty much from the beginning of this session. I do not see it having any relevance to the task at hand either.

However, I am glad you are in touch with your state Rep. I myself have that kind of relationship with mine as well. I also have that exact same relationship with 2 other Reps, and a slightly less close one with a 4th. Hopefully you can see why I laughed at your characterization of me due to my youth earlier.

[Guest HexHead]

Obviously I'm really pissed about how this whole restaurant carry bill nonsense is proceeding. A few weeks ago, it appeared that we had a reasonable bill as a starting point that looked to be a slam dunk to become law. No, it wasn't perfect but it was good enough to get tweaked in a year or two to be what we really wanted. In the mean time, we'd be a hell of a lot better off than we are now.

So now the bill is languishing, torn between philosophies while it's opponents gain strength. Now we're back to being "hopeful" and "maybe" and watching both the House and Senate dig their heels in with successive non- concurrence votes. Next we'll be giving the House another bite at the apple for the 3rd of 4th time instead of basking in our glory of having achieved something.

This is the best environment in years to get this legislation passed. If it dies this year, it's going to be years again before the lawmakers will want to spend much time on it again. A little tweak after a year or two of proving the naysayers wrong would be a walk in the park in comparison.

Some of you guys think I'm just being negative, I've had my permit for 9 years now and I'm tired of having to deal with the whole restaurant nonsense.

[Guest HexHead]

Hex, that quote is not new. That has been the issue pretty much from the beginning of this session. I do not see it having any relevance to the task at hand either.

Well, he just posted it yesterday.

[Guest SomeGuy]

I applied for my permit the day I turned 21. I have carried quite often, even and especially after dark. (Often after 11PM). Do you think I want restaurant carry any less than you, especially when I routinely am taking dates our at late hours (and likely eat at restaurants as often or more so than you at times)?

As far as languishing, it has taken longer than it needed to, we can thank turn-coats in the House for that. Last year we had nearly 66 co-sponsors for a clean version. Think about that for a second. The problem is not the pro-gun nature of the bill, but people who were never really our friends.

Well, he just posted it yesterday.

Again.

[TennFire]

I hope you're right, but it's not looking that way. The House originally passed the bill something like 70-26. Next time it came to them, 45-44 to non-concur. Sounds to me like it's losing support in the House and the longer it gets dragged out, the more time Neifeh gets to pull his shenanigans to derail it. Don't forget, we're not the only ones writing our Reps and Senators. Those moonbats that comment on the Tennessean are doing it as well.

I really want a restaurant bill to pass. Don't for a moment mistake my views. When I was 25, I was idealistic too and I understand you want a clean bill or nothing. Well, from where I'm sitting, it's looking like nothing is more likely than a clean bill. Problem with you kids, is you want everything NOW. Well the real world just doesn't always work that way.

And also from where I'm sitting, the TFA is doing us as much harm as the Bradys.

I would like to know what you think TFA is going that is causing harm, particularly harm anywhere near on par with the Brady campaign.