TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:Can they do the 26 names on a sheet of paper like they did the other night?

I believe that rule was for limiting new AMENDMENTS to those that were on the Speaker's desk.

I think the only way to debate now is on the motion to(or not to) concur.

Does anyone know in which order they'll go on the House calendar tomorrow? SB11 is the 3rd item listed on the calendar.

jmra wrote:I stand corrected. If this bill passes the first thing that needs to happen in 2017 is to bring the penalty in line with 30.06 if they are going to use the 30.06 sign.

I agree, but the offense would not be a violation of TPC §30.06, at least on public school grounds. The violation is of a new offense created in TPC §46.035. The 30.06 sign is used because it's familiar. Private schools can use TPC §30.06, so there would be two potential charges, but TPC §30.06 is a Class C.

Chas.

ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?

I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.

ScooterSissy wrote:

ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?

I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.

True that. Because this is stated in the bill (as opposed to the legislative intent), could the courts also use this as a basis if a student feels they have been effectively banned?

Vol Texan wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?

I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.

True that. Because this is stated in the bill (as opposed to the legislative intent), could the courts also use this as a basis if a student feels they have been effectively banned?

That's my thought process. I could see students taking legal action.

ScooterSissy wrote:

ELB wrote:So it seems we are not worse off, but the only "advance" is that public universities and schools have to jump through some bureaucratic hoops to ban concealed carry?

I believe the bill specifically states they cannot create a defacto ban.

It turns the tables onto univ administration to have to justify where/why they have restrictions. So good-bye to the question "Why do you want to carry?" addressed to CHLs. Now it is "Why can't I carry here?" addressed to administrators.

I also have a hard time seeing how they will be able to justify restricting your run-of-the-mill campus building that consists of classrooms and offices.

PBS running a story that it will be OK for police to stop and check your CHL.
That taking out the amendments was done so they could check .
I don't think that is in the bill. AM I wrong..?
I know PBS doesn't believe in the Constitution.

viking1000 wrote:PBS running a story that it will be OK for police to stop and check your CHL.
That taking out the amendments was done so they could check .
I don't think that is in the bill. AM I wrong..?
I know PBS doesn't believe in the Constitution.

It is not in the bill and would be a violation of the constitution and open up law enforcement to civil liabilities. On the bright side, many recorded instances of such violations should result in legislative action in 2017.

Yesterday I was talking to a friend, who's been a Houston police officer for 15+ years. The subject of open carry came up and it obvious that he didn't like the fact that law passed, but it was his comment that got got me. He said that they're going to stop anyone open carrying in Houston and that the city is going to have to hire more officers because of this law.

bones281 wrote:Yesterday I was talking to a friend, who's been a Houston police officer for 15+ years. The subject of open carry came up and it obvious that he didn't like the fact that law passed, but it was his comment that got got me. He said that they're going to stop anyone open carrying in Houston and that the city is going to have to hire more officers because of this law.

That was Sheriff Garcia's warning during the first round testimony...if he gets elected Mayor, you can bet they will try it. The only thing about OC that would result in the need for more officers is if they decide, for an extended period of time, to vigorously pursue every "man with a gun" call they get. On the other hand, HPOU has begged for more officers for years & they don't get it bcz the City can't afford it.

Its another example of talking out of both sides of their mouths. Just like the probable cause threat determination "problems" they argued regarding Huffines/Dutton, if the HPD can't make a determination of relative threat, (real MWAG vs OC'er) and assign call priority appropriately, they have bigger problems.

bones281 wrote:Yesterday I was talking to a friend, who's been a Houston police officer for 15+ years. The subject of open carry came up and it obvious that he didn't like the fact that law passed, but it was his comment that got got me. He said that they're going to stop anyone open carrying in Houston and that the city is going to have to hire more officers because of this law.

I hope that is only his "opinion" on hiring more officers to question citizens who choose to open carry. In my " opinion, they should probably go ahead and hire a crew of defense lawyers as well, if that is indeed their plan. Just sayin.

martytcp wrote:

bones281 wrote:Yesterday I was talking to a friend, who's been a Houston police officer for 15+ years. The subject of open carry came up and it obvious that he didn't like the fact that law passed, but it was his comment that got got me. He said that they're going to stop anyone open carrying in Houston and that the city is going to have to hire more officers because of this law.

I hope that is only his "opinion" on hiring more officers to question citizens who choose to open carry. In my " opinion, they should probably go ahead and hire a crew of defense lawyers as well, if that is indeed their plan. Just sayin.

after they stuff the pockets of a few law abiding citizens with cash they will change their policy.

I honestly think part of the LE campaign show against Huffines/Dutton, & Acevedo's comments in particular, was to intimidate potential OC'ers, into thinking twice - the message was avoid harassment, just don't do it.

JollyHappyDad wrote:I honestly think part of the LE campaign show against Huffines/Dutton, & Acevedo's comments in particular, was to intimidate potential OC'ers, into thinking twice - the message was avoid harassment, just don't do it.

I would concur with your assessment.