HB 910 Conference Committee

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Locked
User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 9043
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#271

Post by mojo84 »

baseballguy2001 wrote:I'll take the necessary steps to deal with that particular situation on a case by case basis if or when it happens. -- Really? What 'steps' would that be? An LEO stops you for no reason because you are open carrying -- HE says you were acting 'strange' and he would like to see your license ... what steps?

Like I said, if it ends at me just showing him my license, I'll do it and move on without making a big deal out of it. If he is a jerk and treats me in a disrespectful manner or abuses his authority, I can the file a complaint with the department and then sue the department and the officer.
Last edited by mojo84 on Fri May 29, 2015 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.

causeican
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:17 pm
Location: Watauga

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#272

Post by causeican »

mojo84 wrote:After watching all the antics, listening to all the rhetoric and considering the consequences, I'm ok with removing the amendment and showing an officer my carry license if stopped and asked. Now if it becomes too often or I run into "that cop" that has a burr in his rear over someone open carrying, I'll take the necessary steps to deal with that particular situation on a case by case basis if or when it happens.

For those of you living in the big cities, I think you are the ones that may encounter such requests the most. I hope you will deal with any such contacts and requests in a professional courteous manner at the moment and take up any grievances via the proper channels and methods. If we will handle things in the right way without coming across as jerks, I believe it will be no time before the cops get more comfortable with open carry. I think most of us, cops and their leadership, are all scanning the horizons searching for and expecting the worst case scenarios.

No more than I plan to open carry and considering most cops are reasonable and have good intentions, I do not anticipate a problem. I think getting all worked up about the amendment or no amendment at this time is pointless and will lead to unnecessary heartburn.

I would like to know what steps need to be taken to file a false report complaint or charges against someone that calls in a malicious or frivalous MWAG call?
:iagree:

Let's get the law passed and deal with the LEO's if/when it happens. Hopefully by 2017 it won't be a big deal or perhaps we could add something to the bill at that point if it is. I understand that I don't have to show my ID if I'm not doing anything illegal, but to me its no big deal. Show them your CHL and hopefully they will say good day and leave you alone. JMO.
Last edited by causeican on Fri May 29, 2015 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
2/22/10 Plastic
9/4/12 NRA Life Member
2/16/11 TSRA Life Time (EPL) started.

ScooterSissy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#273

Post by ScooterSissy »

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 did not realize there was a SCOTUS case on this. I knew of a couple of appeals court rulings, but had not heard of a SC ruling. Do you know the case and let us know?

ScooterSissy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 795
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#274

Post by ScooterSissy »

locke_n_load wrote:
Papa_Tiger wrote:
ScooterSissy wrote:I also like the suggestion I saw earlier that if he does insist you can't leave and must show your CHL; politely comply, get his name and badge number, and then the following day do a FOIA request on the report.

Every time it happens. It will be good fodder if the amendment comes up again.
I think this is probably the best response with the addition of making it 100% plain that you are complying under duress (it is a non-consensual encounter after all). When completing the FOIA request, also ask for any dispatch notes, 911 Calls, dash cam video and all other material related to the non-consensual encounter. It avoids antagonizing on the spot, shows that CHL holders are very reasonable people and also allows them to hoist themselves on their own petard.

If this happens often enough and enough complaints are filed at the local and state level, eventually officers and their leaders will get the hint and train accordingly.
I'm in Houston, and I think the leading forces of HPD and Harris County would take complaints from OCers as badges of honor.
That may be true, but when they find a bunch of examples of illegal stop and frisks against CHL holders, they may find that have "less voice" in opposing another amendment in two years.

They also may find themselves on the wrong side of a lawsuit. That badge of honor would come at a price.
User avatar

K5GU
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:36 am
Location: Texas

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#275

Post by K5GU »

I'm guessing that a LEO who sees a person with a holstered gun in public has it in his/her mind (suspects) that the person is not licensed, and thus is a criminal?

Or, maybe the LEO sees a person with a holstered gun in public and has it his/her mind (suspects) that the person HAS a license.

After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.
Life is good.
User avatar

safety1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 45
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:13 am

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#276

Post by safety1 »

What is funny to me is all the flip flopping that happens on every tweet or news release. (me being guilty of it at times)
I just want the bill to be passed and become law. Let's get this done and then we can argue over all this other stuff.
We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. ~ Ronald Reagan ~
NRA - Life Member

ralewis
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:37 pm

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#277

Post by ralewis »

causeican wrote:
mojo84 wrote:After watching all the antics, listening to all the rhetoric and considering the consequences, I'm ok with removing the amendment and showing an officer my carry license if stopped and asked. Now if it becomes too often or I run into "that cop" that has a burr in his rear over someone open carrying, I'll take the necessary steps to deal with that particular situation on a case by case basis if or when it happens.

For those of you living in the big cities, I think you are the ones that may encounter such requests the most. I hope you will deal with any such contacts and requests in a professional courteous manner at the moment and take up any grievances via the proper channels and methods. If we will handle things in the right way without coming across as jerks, I believe it will be no time before the cops get more comfortable with open carry. I think most of us, cops and their leadership, are all scanning the horizons searching for and expecting the worst case scenarios.

No more than I plan to open carry and considering most cops are reasonable and have good intentions, I do not anticipate a problem. I think getting all worked up about the amendment or no amendment at this time is pointless and will lead to unnecessary heartburn.

I would like to know what steps need to be taken to file a false report complaint or charges against someone that calls in a malicious or frivalous MWAG call?
:iagree:

Let's get the law passed and deal with the LEO's if/when it happens. Hopefully by 2017 it won't be a big deal or perhaps we could add something to the bill at that point if it is. I understand that I don't have to show my ID if I'm not doing anything illegal, but to me its no big deal. Show them your CHL and hopefully they will say good day and leave you alone. JMO.

My guess is we''ll probably see an inquiry here and there in the urban areas, but to your point what I'm really curious about is seeing is if it ends there with a 'thanks, and enjoy your day'. Or will it lead to a line of questioning about why you feel you need to carry, or why you specifically feel you need to carry openly. I've had my CHL for about 12 years now, but I wasn't here in the really early days. Wondering what the the dynamic was with traffic stops in the couple of years following 1995 were. That might be a good indicator of what's to be expected.

casp625
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 16
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:24 pm

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#278

Post by casp625 »

Beiruty 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /CR.14.htm
As it is a crime to open carry a sidearm without a CHL, the mere observation of person with a holster handgun is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his CHL.
Just like when you arrive in court, guilty until proven innocent eh?

The Wall
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:59 am

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#279

Post by The Wall »

Well we could do it like I had to do while working at an airport. If working in a secure area of the airport you had to have your ID displayed at all times. Most of us used lanyards and had them hanging around our necks. We were all required to confront anyone that wasn't displaying their ID. If they couldn't display a proper airport ID the police were called. TSA would periodically send people out into the secure areas without ID to test it out. If you neglected to confront/challenge the individual you could get in some real trouble including losing your job. The airport would be fined. I manage to nab several of them in the years I worked there. I'm not serious about this for open carry by the way. Just telling a story. I know it was already suggested wearing some kind of badge. A stupid idea for sure.

arthurcw
Member
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:27 am

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#280

Post by arthurcw »

K5GU wrote: After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.
That's the historical precedent. An exposed weapon has always been a symbol of power/citizenship. Concealed weapons were always something for people up to no good like thieves, con men, gamblers, ladies of negotiable affection, and lawyers (Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't ban me Charles). Which is why I HATE the term "Constitutional Carry." Yes, I know that's gonna get me flamed. But in the context the Constitution was written, they had these ideas in mind. Original Intent, I believe, was to allow all citizens to openly carry as a symbol of the new power structure. Concealed weapons were kinda taboo. So I don't have a problem with states regulating concealed carry*. But unlicensed open carry should be a the norm. Because if you're up to something you want to appear weak and harmless. Cops know this.

When they (LEOs) see a $50-$200 holster and a guy walking calmly with his family they aren't gonna say, "hmmm... PERP!" ...unless they have no option because of a CLEO's directives.


* and if the state wants to allow concealment with no licence, I'm cool with that. They've made their choice of regulations. None.

causeican
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 5:17 pm
Location: Watauga

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#281

Post by causeican »

ralewis wrote:
causeican wrote:
mojo84 wrote:After watching all the antics, listening to all the rhetoric and considering the consequences, I'm ok with removing the amendment and showing an officer my carry license if stopped and asked. Now if it becomes too often or I run into "that cop" that has a burr in his rear over someone open carrying, I'll take the necessary steps to deal with that particular situation on a case by case basis if or when it happens.

For those of you living in the big cities, I think you are the ones that may encounter such requests the most. I hope you will deal with any such contacts and requests in a professional courteous manner at the moment and take up any grievances via the proper channels and methods. If we will handle things in the right way without coming across as jerks, I believe it will be no time before the cops get more comfortable with open carry. I think most of us, cops and their leadership, are all scanning the horizons searching for and expecting the worst case scenarios.

No more than I plan to open carry and considering most cops are reasonable and have good intentions, I do not anticipate a problem. I think getting all worked up about the amendment or no amendment at this time is pointless and will lead to unnecessary heartburn.

I would like to know what steps need to be taken to file a false report complaint or charges against someone that calls in a malicious or frivalous MWAG call?
:iagree:

Let's get the law passed and deal with the LEO's if/when it happens. Hopefully by 2017 it won't be a big deal or perhaps we could add something to the bill at that point if it is. I understand that I don't have to show my ID if I'm not doing anything illegal, but to me its no big deal. Show them your CHL and hopefully they will say good day and leave you alone. JMO.

My guess is we''ll probably see an inquiry here and there in the urban areas, but to your point what I'm really curious about is seeing is if it ends there with a 'thanks, and enjoy your day'. Or will it lead to a line of questioning about why you feel you need to carry, or why you specifically feel you need to carry openly. I've had my CHL for about 12 years now, but I wasn't here in the really early days. Wondering what the the dynamic was with traffic stops in the couple of years following 1995 were. That might be a good indicator of what's to be expected.
I guess time will tell on that. The one and only time I've ever been stopped the LEO was extremely professional. I showed him my CHL and let him know I was carrying, he said okay, took care of business and let me go. I would hope that most LEO's after verifying your CHL would just let you go without asking a bunch of questions. But there are always those that will do things they shouldn't. Even if the amendment stayed I would be willing to say there would still be a few LEO's that would stop you anyway.
2/22/10 Plastic
9/4/12 NRA Life Member
2/16/11 TSRA Life Time (EPL) started.

NEB
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:21 pm
Location: Lubbock
Contact:

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#282

Post by NEB »

Beiruty wrote: Defense Lawyer: Why you do not stop everyone who is driving to check his license while you did stop the defendant to check his CHL?
LEO to the Defense Lawyer: 95% of drivers do have valid Driving License while driving. 95% of the people do NOT have a CHL and may want to OC.

If the Amendment is NOT needed legally, why the PDs and many Reps/Senators are against it?
Here's the problem with your argument. "95% of drivers" vs 95% of the people." If you want to make a valid argument, you need to treat both groups the same and just consider those engaged in the activity rather than the general population. In the case of drivers, yes a majority of drivers have a valid license. When considering OC, the fact is that 95% of people OPEN CARRYING A FIREARM will have a valid license as well. Both groups are equal and should be held to the same standard.

Regardless, let's just pass a bill with or without the amendment.
Last edited by NEB on Fri May 29, 2015 11:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar

fickman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1711
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#283

Post by fickman »

K5GU wrote:I'm guessing that a LEO who sees a person with a holstered gun in public has it in his/her mind (suspects) that the person is not licensed, and thus is a criminal?

Or, maybe the LEO sees a person with a holstered gun in public and has it his/her mind (suspects) that the person HAS a license.

After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.
There's the concern.

The default perspective probably changes department by department, if not LEO by LEO.

Some cities are likely to antagonize open carriers to discourage the practice. I wouldn't put it past some to do a felony stop with guns drawn to intimidate legal open carriers, or to stop and demand to see the license (and call in a check to dispatch) every city block or so.

Most won't, but it's happened in other states.

For the ones that would never do this, the Amendment is insulting.

Also, I know many LEOs that are pro-2A to the core, but there's conflict when they start to think of losing flexibility in doing their job. Sometimes "suspicious" is determined using the smell test, and it doesn't write into a report very well. I can empathize with this - "it didn't seem right," "why?" "because I wasn't born yesterday." They want to keep as many avenues for stopping the suspicious person that fails the smell test as possible.

There are interesting intersections where conservative, pro-freedom, pro-America, and pro-LEO seem to have friction. I get the concerns over "militarization of police", but that is very insulting to most LEOs I know. Their perspective is that the bad guys are more organized and better funded than ever, and they are desperately trying to keep up. It's about safety. I get the discourse between "I don't have to answer that" and "You'd answer if you had nothing to hide." I am a principled / philosophical thinker at the core. I hate pragmatism, but I use it as a tool so that "perfect" doesn't become the enemy of "good" or "better".

All that to say, the law currently prohibits LEOs from gratuitously stopping legal gun owners without suspicion of another crime. Preemptively reasserting it in the law cause unnecessary friction with a group that would otherwise be very supportive. Will somebody abuse it? Probably. So then, with concrete examples, we come back and clean it up once we show the need. Sometimes you have to let story play out and we do ourselves a disservice by trying to fast forward to the end.
Native Texian

K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#284

Post by K.Mooneyham »

I'm with those who want to just get this OC law on the books. It can always be "cleaned up" later if it turns out that there are problems or issues with how things are going.
User avatar

safety1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 45
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:13 am

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

#285

Post by safety1 »

K.Mooneyham wrote:I'm with those who want to just get this OC law on the books. It can always be "cleaned up" later if it turns out that there are problems or issues with how things are going.
Amen!
We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. ~ Ronald Reagan ~
NRA - Life Member
Locked

Return to “2015 Legislative Session”