TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote:KPRC in Houston just reported the bill has cleared and is headed to the Governor's desk. I have no other confirmation, but my fingers are crossed.

The report is accurate

jmra wrote:

Skiprr wrote:KPRC in Houston just reported the bill has cleared and is headed to the Governor's desk. I have no other confirmation, but my fingers are crossed.

The report is accurate

Just read the note from Alice Tripp describing how it transpired. Well whaddya know?

Skiprr wrote:

jmra wrote:

Skiprr wrote:KPRC in Houston just reported the bill has cleared and is headed to the Governor's desk. I have no other confirmation, but my fingers are crossed.

The report is accurate

Just read the note from Alice Tripp describing how it transpired. Well whaddya know?

It has been an incredible ride.

I told my wife that now I have to get a fancy new holster. I got the eye roll.

I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment was useless. Do you think someone who doesn't respect the constitution would respect the wording of the amendment?

Ed4032 wrote:I told my wife that now I have to get a fancy new holster. I got the eye roll.

Better get your order in immediately, I would bet these leather guys will have major backlogs as soon as the Governor signs!

jmra wrote:

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment was useless. Do you think someone who doesn't respect the constitution would respect the wording of the amendment?

Agreed 100%, but explicit language would help you beat the rap even if you can't beat the ride.

longhorn86 wrote:

Ed4032 wrote:I told my wife that now I have to get a fancy new holster. I got the eye roll.

Better get your order in immediately, I would bet these leather guys will have major backlogs as soon as the Governor signs!

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know about others but I have holsters for all of my handguns already. Don't need to buy another one until I buy another gun. Besides you have plenty of time. Doesn't become law for 7 months. Maybe you can ask Santa for one.

The Wall wrote:

longhorn86 wrote:

Ed4032 wrote:I told my wife that now I have to get a fancy new holster. I got the eye roll.

Better get your order in immediately, I would bet these leather guys will have major backlogs as soon as the Governor signs!

I'm not so sure about that. I don't know about others but I have holsters for all of my handguns already. Don't need to buy another one until I buy another gun. Besides you have plenty of time. Doesn't become law for 7 months. Maybe you can ask Santa for one.

Agreed there is most likely plenty of time, but I just received my DM Bullard recently after waiting 6 weeks when OC was just a "hope", just figured that now that it has passed, the procrastinators may have a little longer to wait..

jmra wrote:

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment was useless. Do you think someone who doesn't respect the constitution would respect the wording of the amendment?

So police can stop a person and demand them to present their CHL solely on a visible firearm being worn?

nightmare69 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment was useless. Do you think someone who doesn't respect the constitution would respect the wording of the amendment?

So police can stop a person and demand them to present their CHL solely on a visible firearm being worn?

Haven't we(the entire forum) had this debate about a bazaillion times in the past 2 weeks. Or 6 months for that matter?

Simple answer? Yes. ONLY if the officer has reason to.

joe817 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment was useless. Do you think someone who doesn't respect the constitution would respect the wording of the amendment?

So police can stop a person and demand them to present their CHL solely on a visible firearm being worn?

Haven't we(the entire forum) had this debate about a bazaillion times in the past 2 weeks. Or 6 months for that matter?

Simple answer? Yes. ONLY if the officer has reason to.

I'm not on this forum all the time and wanted a strait answer. Your answer contradicts itself. My question is, can a LEO stop a person open carrying without probable cause and demand to see their CHL just because they are open carrying?

I knew there was a amendment preventing LEOs from doing that and I didn't know if it passed with the bill.

nightmare69 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment was useless. Do you think someone who doesn't respect the constitution would respect the wording of the amendment?

So police can stop a person and demand them to present their CHL solely on a visible firearm being worn?

As I understand it, technically they shouldn't. However, we know as with traffic stops, it's fairly easy to find pretext for a stop. I have a feeling some cops will stop people with or without probable cause until they get used to seeing people with openly carried guns. Hopefully, both parties will treat each other professionally and respectfully.

The Fourth Amendment applies with or without the Huffines/Dutton amendment. However, some will argue since it hasn't been confirmed in the 5th circuit, the 4th doesn't apply in this instance. In other words, it is yet to be settled for sure via the courts in our circuit.

If I am wrong, I am sure there will be plenty to come along and correct me.

nightmare69 wrote:

joe817 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:So police can stop a person and demand them to present their CHL solely on a visible firearm being worn?

Haven't we(the entire forum) had this debate about a bazaillion times in the past 2 weeks. Or 6 months for that matter?

Simple answer? Yes. ONLY if the officer has reason to.

I'm not on this forum all the time and wanted a strait answer. Your answer contradicts itself. My question is, can a LEO stop a person open carrying without probable cause and demand to see their CHL just because they are open carrying?

I knew there was a amendment preventing LEOs from doing that and I didn't know if it passed with the bill.

I gave you the straight answer you requested. The amendment was stripped from the bill. And the resultant was accepted, voted on and passed. Do you need further clarification?