The story of HB0962...as I see it.

[Fallguy]

Let me say I have no "inside" information about anything. This is just from my observations of the legislature, things they said while watching videos and communications I have had with them and seen between others and them.

As most of you know, HB0962 was one of the 4 bills to come out of the summer study committee related to firearms and carry. Just as with what we saw in the conference committee, the final version of the bill was what the majority of the committee agreed upon, not necessarily how each individual Rep would have liked it to be.

Rep Curry Todd agreed to carry bill HB0962 through the House process.

From what I've seen him say today and in the conference committee, he personally never wanted any restrictions on the bill. However he agreed to carry it and that is what he did. So if he would have ever agreed to having the restrictions removed, while it was still going through the house, he would have more or less been going back on his word.

However...when House voted not to recede on their non-concurrence of the Senate Bill and the bill was assigned to the conference committee the act of carrying that exact bill was over and Rep Todd no longer had any obligation to the bill that came out of the study committee.

If you watched the video of the conference committee...there was no doubt how Rep Todd felt. He also seemed to act with due diligence to move along the process on issuing a committee report and getting it to the floor of the house.

Of course we all know that the conference committee reported was adopted and passed in the house today.

To me...it seems like this was the plan all along....to get it to a conference committee and have the restrictions removed. If you watched today, you saw where it was mentioned that former Speaker Nafieh was the one that assigned members to the summer study committee. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I assume the majority of the people on that committee supported his view point and that is why the version that came out of the study committee was the way it was.

This would also explain why some of the votes were they way they were on the motions to not recede and non-concur.

So while it seemed like a long haul and was ugly to watch at times....I think it went exactly like those that were responsible for it wanted it to go.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

so Fall what do you think this mean for places that serve alcohol for onsite consumption thats not a part of Beavers Senate amendment that defines a restaurant?

[Fallguy]

See this thread for that.

[G27]

Thanks, Fallguy. I just finished emailing another apology to Ron Lollar for the email i sent him frustrated with his vote of non-concurrence. These guys do indeed (occasionally) play the game very, very well...

[Fallguy]

I hear ya... I need to contact Rep Todd soon myself.

While I never contacted him directly about the restrictions...I sure gave him a hard time on here about it.

[Guest db99wj]

What you said is the way I understood it from some communications that I received.

This says a lot for Rep Todd, he is a man of his word in a group that, that is not always the case.

I applaud him and his efforts over years.

[Guest Seminole]

Fallguy, the only problem I see is that what Sen. Todd is saying now about his position all along just doesn't jibe with what he said in the Chattanooga Times on March 31 about allowing holders of HCPs to carry after 11:00 in restaurants that serve alcohol and in age-restricted venues:

“You can’t leave it wide open out there in my opinion and be responsible, to let them just carry it anywhere they want to carry it."

That doesn't sound like he was thinking strategically. It sounds like a he was stating a personal belief. Now it is possible that the Times quoted him incorrectly, but that sounds like a hard quote to screw up. Its just not something that he had to say--much less with such fervor--if he was only fulfilling a commitment to carry the legislation through in the form it was passed out of the study committee.

If I'm wrong, then good for him for being smart enough to have fooled not only the opponents to enhanced carry but all of us as well. Maybe I'm too cynical about politicians, but this wouldn't be the first time that a politician took credit for legislation that wound up being substantially different from what he intended. It always makes me nervous when a politician begins to say that he was always in favor of something for which he previously expressed enthusiastic opposition.

[Fallguy]

Seminole, I see what you are saying...and reading the article I think I watched that session and I'm trying to remember it.

Not sure if what he said was because he was surprised by the others actions and/or it was an attempt to keep the bill as-is at that time to keep things going toward what I was talking about.

I'm not so sure the plan (if there was one) was to fool people as much as just "politics" and/or a course of action.

Being a little cynical is probably good though....and I'm just being a little optimistic because I think I've become aware of somethings I wasn't before.

Together it may be a good balance.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Fallguy - I agree with you. I think your interpretation of the past few weeks on this bill are pretty good. That is basically the thought that I had after piecing it all together.

One thing for sure, watching this bill from start to finish (well, almost finished ) I have really learned a great deal more about the legislative process.

[Fallguy]

I have followed bills of another interest in past sessions, but not quite to this degree and definetly not with as many other people following it.

It definetly has been a learning process.

[Guest db99wj]

Without a doubt I learned a lot by following this. I also really got involved, not with just a random letter or voting, I sent multiple emails, and had a phone conversation.

With that said, it feels nice that I "helped" with this process, but in no way do I want to make my, few months of sending emails be more than they were. I answered a call, I did that, I am sure it helped, but there are many out there that have been fighting for this for years, they deserve the most credit, they deserve the accolades. Like I said, I know we helped, but we were able to do that because of these others, like John Harris, Rep Curry Todd, Sen Jackson and many others, laid the ground work.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I did it, it was all me. You all were just my pawns... MUUUAAHHAAHAAHAAAAA:crazy:

Sorry guys, I got a big case of the Fridays I guess.

[Punisher84]

I just got a reply back from from Rep. Todd after I sent him a thank you note. I'm with Db, this has really gotten me motivated politically and I've learned alot!

[Guest HexHead]

All those hours I spent watching the House proceedings taught me something too.

That Nextel fireman's commercial was right. That is pretty much how it's done.

[Fallguy]

All those hours I spent watching the House proceedings taught me something too.

That Nextel fireman's commercial was right. That is pretty much how it's done.

LOL...that's pretty good.

You know...I thought about this a little more last night. So hear is another reason I wonder if maybe this was pretty close to the way the sponsor wanted to do it all along.

Since most of us did watch a lot of video....we see how hard it was for the House bill, even with the restrictions, to get out of committee and passed on the floor. I'd wager to say a "clean bill" would have never got out of committee and we'd been done right there.

The way it went down...it got out of committee and was passed by the house in it's form. Then the Senate could change it all they wanted to (which they did) and the entire house would vote up or down on those changes....not each little part be debated in committee where just 2-3 could kill the bill.

Again...I may be giving too much credit where it isn't due....but I don't think so......just look at the park bill...

The house passed the park bill for state parks. The bill for local parks has got so messed up I don't think it could ever be fixed. But now the Senate companion bill of the House state parks bill has added local parks, made it legal by default, the local government would have to vote (maybe by 2/3) to make it illegal, if they did it would have to be the whole park and they would have to post. Also carry wouldn't be limited to just "parks" as the Senate bill as amended just makes an exception under the current 39-17-1311.

Now I guarantee you if current senate bill would have been the house bill it would not have made it (see history of current House local parks bill) but the house did pass a bill, and now again the Senate has amended the companion bill and if passes the full Senate the full House will vote to concur or non-concur. Instead of the details being debated in committee and it possibly being killed there. Some who may not like all the "details" of the Senate bill may still vote for it in general. Sort of like McCord didn't like removing the restriction for the restaurant bill in the house, but still voted for what was the final version of the bill.

[Guest HexHead]

LOL...that's pretty good.

You know...I thought about this a little more last night. So hear is another reason I wonder if maybe this was pretty close to the way the sponsor wanted to do it all along.

That would explain why so many "pro-gun" Reps voted to non-concur with the Senate bill and send it to committee.

I hate to think these guys are smarter than we give them credit for.

[Guest JavaGuy]

Snipped and reposted from my post to another thread on this same subject...

HB962 is on Thursday's message calendar in the Senate. First item, I believe...

For those who wonder when it will be brought up, the usual order is:

personal orders (recognizing friends and constituents in the gallery, honoring people for this or that),

consent calendars,

regular calendars,

message calendars,

unfinished business (from previous sessions).

The session will start around 9 am on Thursday.

My understanding is that the bill's summary has been updated now to reflect the House's adoption of the conference committee report.

[Guest HexHead]

I'm still suspect of this language of the bill....

and such restaurant is not an age-restricted venue

[Guest JavaGuy]

I'm still suspect of this language of the bill....

Perhaps you should run for office then.

If you're going to imagine hidden gotcha's behind every thing that happens in the legislative process, perhaps you should run for office and get down here so that you can clean the place out.

As I said in another post, the summary of the bill in question has now been updated. It spells out pretty plainly where things now stand.

Bill Summary

To boil it down, the House has now accepted the Senate's version of the bill. The Senate's version (description snipped from the bill summary) "removes the provisions of House Amendment #1 and thus reinstates the provisions of the original bill. This amendment also revises the original bill to remove the requirement that the restaurant not be an age-restricted venue in order for a person who has a handgun carry permit and otherwise complies with the bill to carry a handgun into the restaurant."

[Fallguy]

See this post in another thread.

Please try to keep this thread on topic.