TexasCHLforum.com

v7a wrote:

TVGuy wrote:Is there a reason why people think this would be signed on the 20th day?

Controversial bills are often signed on the last day. The Democrats and the media have made a lot of noise about how Republicans spent all this time on gun bills to the detriment of more important issues. While that's obviously bull (90% of the time on these bills was consumed by Democrats stalling), one way for the Governor to counter that perception among some in the public is to sign all the other bills he's going to sign first.

JollyHappyDad wrote:"With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through."

No. 1) Can't carry a handgun legally w/o a CHL. 2) Can't enter the capital with a handgun unless you have a CHL. 3) To enter with a handgun you have to enter thru the correct line & prove CHL. If you attempt to enter thru the detectors with a gun, concealed or not, you're gonna have to prove you are just stupid not a criminal. A gun in a metal detector at a high risk target, is a reasonable cause to ask for proof (and if up to me reason to deny entry), the status of OC or the amendment doesn't affect the rules of entry.

K5GU wrote: I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.

K5GU wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

You're probably correct. However if I was going to be alarmed in the Capitol buildings, it would be apprehension over who might be armed with a HIDDEN gun, not an openly visible gun in a holster.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

canvasbck wrote:

camjr wrote:I'm with Annoyed Man. 95% is better than nothing. The vast majority of CHL holders won't be practicing OC in metropolitan areas where the ammendment opposition comes from, but I anticipate seeing a lot of OC on opening day of dove season on 9/1/16 out in the rural area restaurants between morning and afternoon hunts! Get the law on the books, and fix it down the road.

Now, just get the darn thing to the Governor!

Cheers!

If a ton of folks carry on opening day of dove season, 9/1/15, there will likely be a few arrests and/or citations. The law won't take effect until 01/01/16.

I'm a little bummed about that. I'm elk hunting in Van Horn in September. I'll be hunting with my .500 and that thing is a real pain to take off and on for a trip to town.

baseballguy2001 wrote:There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

harrycallahan wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

pdxmale wrote:here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Where did you get this information? Please cite it.

I think this is misinformation. Nothing against the OP. It just sounds to weird to be right.

pdxmale wrote:here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

v7a wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:Any reason why Phillips can't or shouldn't call for the concurrence vote on HB910 right now?

Beats me. It seems the longer we wait the more time for opposition to build and votes to flip (and less time for conference if concurrence vote fails).

safety1 wrote:Some are intentionally spreading misinformation. I'd suspect
those doing so are not in support of what has happend.
More or less wanting to rain on the parade

RHenriksen wrote:

TXBO wrote:Am I right that if 910 passes with the Dutton amendment that 910 goes directly to Abbott?

I'm curious about that - I could see the Democratic senators supporting this amendment if that means the bill gets kicked back to the House (and delayed, and maybe never make it to the gov's desk).