^This. I think I said elsewhere, it's just a small minority of CLEO's that drive the need for the amendment in the first place. Were it not for Acevedo and his ilk, it would have been a non-issue from the get go. It's worth passing it absent the amendment just to get the reduction in penalty. And I'd rarely OC anyway. But absent the amendment I would NEVER OC in Houston or Austin. And I'd wager even with the amendment, those CLEO's would find a way around it.nitrogen wrote:Anyone remember how many times the legislature had to define "traveling" for legal carry in your car without a chl, for cities like Houston to get it? They finally just decided to say forget it and make it completely legal, because police departments (austin and houston from what I remember) would ignore the law and make up their own interpretation.
Pretty sure thats why "The Amendment" is so important to some people. We know that, ahem, THOSE PD departments will do whatever they want if they can figure a loophole.
having said that, let's just get this passed already.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “HB 910 Conference Committee”
- Fri May 29, 2015 12:46 pm
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 123774
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Fri May 29, 2015 10:01 am
- Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
- Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
- Replies: 518
- Views: 123774
Re: HB 910 Conference Committee
That statute appears to address how a LEO can arrest without a warrant. Nothing I see there to prohibit license checks just because.K5GU wrote: They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /CR.14.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;