TexasCHLforum.com

Why didn't the antis filibuster it? I thought that proclaimed that was what they were going to do.

The senate amendment is horribly written. If you wrote that for a freshman English class, the teacher would hand it back to you with an "F."

The Annoyed Man wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip, I have a CHL and am Open Carrying, and just walking, minding my own business. Can a cop come up and ask for my license? Would I legally have to give it to him? Can I tell him no, that I have a CHL but don't wish to give it to him, that it's included in the 4th amendment? I know that the penal code says that I must produce my license if I am concealed carrying, just wondering how all this would go with OC.
Thanks.

No, he cannot. It's already settled by SCOTUS. he has to be able to articulate a reason.......which is not that hard......but it has to be plausible.

I'm not that confident. If they KNEW they couldn't do it anyway, why were they so hysterically opposed to the amendment?

twomillenium wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip......

My understanding is that the law is the law whether or not it is repeatedly defined in each and every law passed. A person minding his own business and not breaking any laws should not be stopped by LEOs just to see if he is really not breaking the law.

What "should" not happen and what DOES happen are two different things. It appears that a HUGE number of LEOs out there believe that this amendment was the only thing that stood between them and investigatory stops. That's why they were so hysterical about it. Now that the amendment's been removed, I assume most of them will now think, "hey, it didn't pass, so it's OK to stop'em." And a lot of them will. Sure, many LEOs are decent people, but there are more than a few jerks out there wearing badges. Those guys are going to relish this legislative "green light."

<deleted>

If I'm understanding it correctly, it's dead meat. It will never survive the filibusters. Tell me I'm wrong.

arthurcw wrote:Check other thread. Amendment remains. So the speed was really just because there was nothing more that could be done. Objectionable language remains. no point in going to committee other than trying to delay an up or down vote.

So if they didn't change anything, it goes back to a simple concurrence vote, right?

According to:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 10#vote759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The conference committee report has been filed! Does anybody have any details?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If HB910 dies, it will be solely on the shoulders of Huffines. Yes, more House Republicans could have voted to concur, but then there's the possibility of a veto. Nothing in politics is a guarantee, so you play the odds and try to stack the deck in your favor. Taking a "damnn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" attitude usually gets your political ship sunk.
Chas.

Charles, thanks for being clear and comprehensive as usual. A lot of us use this forum just to kill time while waiting for your next post....

I'm still a little fuzzy about something, though. It's been repeated and repeated, including in both chambers, that recent constitutional law (from the Ohio cases) precludes unwarranted stops, and thus the amendments are redundant and unnecessary, if not downright irrelevant. Because of these recent decisions, an LEO can't detain you without RS, with or without the amendments. Are these hysterical LEOs simply unaware of this? If Abbott's veto is/was a possibility, does that mean he's unaware of it, too, or does it mean the recent decisions don't carry as much weight as we thought they did?

NotRPB wrote:

Ruark wrote:

FormerTSgt wrote:What's laughable is right after deleting our posts OCT is now asking that the amendment be stripped. Go figure.

Are they too dense to realize that if it's stripped, the bill is dead? That would send it to the Senate (assuming it survived the House), where Ellis, et. al. are waiting to filibuster it.

if not stripped @josefortexas or someone may fillibuster it? if is stripped @RodneyEllis will? ...

@JohnCarona 3 hours ago
Amending Open Carry bill to disallow police questioning risks cops' safety. Its common sense---except to the Libertarians. #TXLege

No, if it's not stripped or changed in any way, it would just go back to the House for a 2nd concurrence vote, where they don't have discussion or debate, just a simple majority vote, and from there, assuming it passed, it would go to the governor. If the committee strips or changes the amendment, it's dead, because it would have to go through both chambers with discussion/debate allowed, and there are factions in both chambers waiting to filibuster it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, the ONLY way 910 has a chance of surviving is to come back from the conference committee absolutely unchanged and go to that 2nd concurrence vote.

And with people like Nevarez on that committee, I'm not optimistic.

FormerTSgt wrote:What's laughable is right after deleting our posts OCT is now asking that the amendment be stripped. Go figure.

Are they too dense to realize that if it's stripped, the bill is dead? That would send it to the Senate (assuming it survived the House), where Ellis, et. al. are waiting to filibuster it.

Please tell me if I'm understand this correctly. I'm trying to tell some other people about it, and it's hard to do when you're not sure of what you're saying.

If the conference committee doesn't come to agreement, the bill dies. I think that's a given.

If/when the bill comes back out of conference with nothing changed, the House will vote on it again. Since they voted against concurrence the first time (that's what sent it to committee in the first place), many feel there's a slim chance they would change their minds and vote for the same bill they just voted against. Matter of opinion here. Some of those reps said they still support it, they just wanted to send it to committee first. Phillips seems to feel that it would pass if it went through a second time.

The real danger is in the Senate. If/when the bill comes out of the conference committee and anything IS changed (e.g. the amendment is removed), it will have to be passed in both the House and the Senate, where Ellis, West and others will filibuster it until it dies.

Do I understand it correctly?

Thanks.