TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Texas1999 wrote:Looks like the only way OC will get passed now is if the bill is changed to allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people who are OC'ing, solely because they are OC'ing and with no reasonable suspicion the person is committing any crime.

I can't believe any state senator or congressman would support a law that allowed LEOs to stop a person solely because he is openly carrying and demand to see ID. Such a law is so clearly unconstitutional it almost defies logic to think that state representatives (most of whom are LAWYERS) could possibly think such a law would withstand a constitutional challenge.

No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control. Also, far less than 50% of the Texas legislature are attorneys.

Chas.

Couldn't someone point this out to the police? Or are they just using this as an excuse to be against it rather than come right out and say they want people to think they can be randomly stopped for this and hopefully most people won't know and sue them?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The opposition is three-fold, in my view. I know for a fact that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments are a slap in the face to law enforcement. It is a statement that "you cannot be trusted." Some LEOs are not trustworthy, but to paint the entire LEO community with that label is as absurd and unfair as to argue that all gun owners are dangerous sociopaths because of the acts a handfull of mass murderers. Gun owners were understandably offended when Bloomberg pointed to Sandy Hook as justification to disarm 150 million American gun owners, yet some argue that the wrongful acts of a small percentage of LEOs mean none of them can be trusted.
Chas.

The police have proven themselves to be untrustworthy so that's why it needs to be included so their isn't any misunderstanding about what is allowed or not. I don't think its unfair at all since a normal person cant go around checking to make sure a police officer has the correct credentials.

winters wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The opposition is three-fold, in my view. I know for a fact that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments are a slap in the face to law enforcement. It is a statement that "you cannot be trusted." Some LEOs are not trustworthy, but to paint the entire LEO community with that label is as absurd and unfair as to argue that all gun owners are dangerous sociopaths because of the acts a handfull of mass murderers. Gun owners were understandably offended when Bloomberg pointed to Sandy Hook as justification to disarm 150 million American gun owners, yet some argue that the wrongful acts of a small percentage of LEOs mean none of them can be trusted.
Chas.

The police have proven themselves to be untrustworthy so that's why it needs to be included so their isn't any misunderstanding about what is allowed or not. I don't think its unfair at all since a normal person cant go around checking to make sure a police officer has the correct credentials.

I guess it's a good thing you don't hold all gun owners to the same standard. I'd hate to lose by Second Amendment rights because another gun owner acted inappropriately or unlawfully.

Chas.

I would say a large majority of legal gun owners are very responsible. We could get into a discussion about the high moral standards politicians and attorneys convey. Lol

My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but any idea of when the Governor will sign the legislation and when it will go into effect?

johncanfield wrote:My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but any idea of when the Governor will sign the legislation and when it will go into effect?

Goes into effect on Jan 1, 2016.

Great - thanks!

Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.

TEA wrote:Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.

Because Jan 1, 2016 is the stated effective date in the bill. This date was specified at the request of DPS to give them time to train CHL instructors on the changes in the law.

jmra wrote:

TEA wrote:Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.

Because Jan 1, 2016 is the stated effective date in the bill. This date was specified at the request of DPS to give them time to train CHL instructors on the changes in the law.

Hasn't been signed yet as of 6/5.

LSUTiger wrote:

jmra wrote:

TEA wrote:Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.

Because Jan 1, 2016 is the stated effective date in the bill. This date was specified at the request of DPS to give them time to train CHL instructors on the changes in the law.

Hasn't been signed yet as of 6/5.

It will be signed, of course the gov signature is not required for it to become law.

It will be signed, of course the gov signature is not required for it to become law.

If the governor doesn't sign it, isn't that called a pocket veto?

There's not much time to override a veto of any form.

treadlightly wrote:

It will be signed, of course the gov signature is not required for it to become law.

If the governor doesn't sign it, isn't that called a pocket veto?

There's not much time to override a veto of any form.

Incorrect.
"Upon receiving a bill, the governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. If the governor vetoes the bill and the legislature is still in session, the bill is returned to the house in which it originated with an explanation of the governor's objections. A two-thirds majority in each house is required to override the veto. If the governor neither vetoes nor signs the bill within 10 days, the bill becomes a law. If a bill is sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, the governor has until 20 days after final adjournment to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature."
http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/

Learn something new every day - thanks!

treadlightly wrote:Learn something new every day - thanks!