TexasCHLforum.com

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 have faith in this group, Charles and the House and Senate. If this happens, they will take action against it, and make it a crime, fine, or some other repercussions. They have chipped away at 2a issues to resolve and improve things. I have not personally met any of these looney LEO, but they will be making a huge mistake to be predatory in their enforcement, behavior and implementation. I am 100% confident there will be a few videos online though. On the contrary, nobody should bait them either.

Thank You Charles, Senator Estes and others who have worked so hard.

They said the same stuff about CC in the mid-90s. "There will be blood in the streets, simple disagreements will turn in to gun battles, we will have to hire more officers to handle the additional call volume... and more Coroners and MEs on top of that.........."

None of it ever happened. When will they learn, they cannot scare us into giving up our God-given rights?

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.

The courts have ruled that a law enforcement officer must have an articulable suspicion to stop a citizen for questioning. Open carrying a firearm, when it's legal to do so, does not create an articulable suspicion. Therefore they must have something else (furtive movement, suspicious actions, angry outburst, etc.) to stop you and ask to see your license.

So PBS is wrong, as is most of the media most of the time. All the amendment did was put into law what is already law. Nothing more. Removing it doesn't change a thing. It was removed for political reasons.

I am curious; is your LEO friend unaware that he is prohibited from taking this action by the fourth ammendment or is he aware but just going to take the above action anyway. If the former an effort needs to be made to educate Leo's on this matter, if the later he should receive substantial disciplinary action up to possible termination. A Leo who intentionally refuses to obey the laws belongs on the opposite side of the bars.

TCLEOSE those are the folks who run the education of all police in the state of Texas, and issue licences for officers, in there tests, are very specific Q&As about stopping someone, just because you feel like it .
As a former deputy when I went through the academy, what you can and cant stop someone for, was driven into our heads with a sledge hammer, along with case law, that could get you into big trouble, should you violate the persons rights.

I think it will be very interesting to see what occurs at venues held in government owned facilities with OC. Especially gun shows which are frequently posted with unenforceable 30.06 signage. SB 273 offers a remedy now establishing penalties for those actions we'll have to see how that works out. With CC they had to stop you and ask, (a personal pet peeve) now with OC it's obvious, If someone open carries past the 30.07 signage and is arrested or detained it will be interesting to see what happens.
The SB273 statute allows a time period to remove signage after reporting to the AG and usually the shows are over before that time is up. There may be attempts to repeatedly circumvent the law with that loophole, but if there's an arrest and test case the government will not prevail and will be put on notice which would make the next incident clearly in violation and be cause for a civil rights suit I would think. IANAL

jmra wrote:

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 wouldn't base any future income getting money out of the city. It is extremely difficult to successfully break through "official immunity" and as noted elsewhere a police officer can come up with all kinds of reasonable suspicion pretexts to stop someone open carrying, including facial expressions (in his experience), the fact you were nervous, etc. Remember DA Rosenthal basically instructed the police to ignore the first version of the MPA and arrest anyone with a gun in his car and no CHL. That really only went away when Rosenthal went away.

ELB wrote:

jmra wrote:

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 wouldn't base any future income getting money out of the city. It is extremely difficult to successfully break through "official immunity" and as noted elsewhere a police officer can come up with all kinds of reasonable suspicion pretexts to stop someone open carrying, including facial expressions (in his experience), the fact you were nervous, etc. Remember DA Rosenthal basically instructed the police to ignore the first version of the MPA and arrest anyone with a gun in his car and no CHL. That really only went away when Rosenthal went away.

This is why video recording would be a must. It's not something I will worry about as I do not plan to OC.

txyaloo wrote:

Ruark wrote:Granted that many anti-gun university presidents will put "classroom buildings" on the no-CCW list.

I highly doubt this. The bill and legislative intent specifically limit the ability to put an entire classroom building on an off limits list. They could put specific classrooms or areas of a building as off limits. An example of an entire building that could be off limits would be the nuclear reactor at A&M.

There is no language in the bill that says an entire classroom building, or any other building, may not be put off limits for CHL carry. The university just has to generate a report justifying it, and remember this will be be written by people who don't want guns on campus.

The only limitation is "The president or officer may not establish provisions that generally prohibit or have the effect of generally prohibiting license holders from carrying concealed handguns on the campus of the institution." There are no legal penalties for a university president who creates a clever patchwork that greatly discourages concealed carry.

The limits of "...the effect of generally prohibiting..." are up for grabs, and the situation favors the anti-gun presidents. When the president of UT consults with the anti-gun student government and the largely anti-gun faculty and they all decide the "specific safety considerations" of places where masses of students gather (because crowd behavior and risk of missed shots) and professors' offices (because grades are discussed there and that's "emotional"), and add in labs for safety purposes, etc etc... it's going to be tricky to legally carry. Only the regents can over-ride this, and as a group they don't seem interested in how the universities actually operate (see what happ;ened to Regent Hall), they just want to expand fund raising.

A student can sue and try to introduce legislative intent, but he's up against a university with a whole lot bigger budget. Maybe SAF would help, but I they are pretty busy already.

I hope there are some legislative champions in the next leg that will expand this, but I do not get the sense that the legislature really cares much about reining in the universities, to put it mildly.

baldeagle wrote:

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.

The courts have ruled that a law enforcement officer must have an articulable suspicion to stop a citizen for questioning. Open carrying a firearm, when it's legal to do so, does not create an articulable suspicion. Therefore they must have something else (furtive movement, suspicious actions, angry outburst, etc.) to stop you and ask to see your license.

So PBS is wrong, as is most of the media most of the time. All the amendment did was put into law what is already law. Nothing more. Removing it doesn't change a thing. It was removed for political reasons.

I believe those ruling have come from cases in states with unlicensed open carry. Having to be licensed may challenge the case law.

TXBO wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

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.

The courts have ruled that a law enforcement officer must have an articulable suspicion to stop a citizen for questioning. Open carrying a firearm, when it's legal to do so, does not create an articulable suspicion. Therefore they must have something else (furtive movement, suspicious actions, angry outburst, etc.) to stop you and ask to see your license.

So PBS is wrong, as is most of the media most of the time. All the amendment did was put into law what is already law. Nothing more. Removing it doesn't change a thing. It was removed for political reasons.

I believe those ruling have come from cases in states with unlicensed open carry. Having to be licensed may challenge the case law.

There is already case law that states the requirement of a license is not RS for a stop to verify the license holder is in fact licensed- I believe it is in reference to driving but the same principle - this was referenced a number of times during the debates in both the house and the senate.

Has Gov. Abbott announced when he is going to sign the bills into law?

Maybe Open Carry would be more palatable to Democrats if it's explained to them as a rent-control measure: Californians will stop moving here and/or move back.

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.

If that starts going on, then I will definitely open carry. I already carry a voice recorder anyway, so I'll also pull out my voice and video it. I have no problem with being willing to file a lawsuit.

ELB wrote:

txyaloo wrote:

Ruark wrote:Granted that many anti-gun university presidents will put "classroom buildings" on the no-CCW list.

I highly doubt this. The bill and legislative intent specifically limit the ability to put an entire classroom building on an off limits list. They could put specific classrooms or areas of a building as off limits. An example of an entire building that could be off limits would be the nuclear reactor at A&M.

There is no language in the bill that says an entire classroom building, or any other building, may not be put off limits for CHL carry. The university just has to generate a report justifying it, and remember this will be be written by people who don't want guns on campus.

Did you happen to listen to the legislative intent discussion with Sen. Birdwell yesterday? He was specifically asked about making an entire classroom building or other building off limits w/o having some type of special circumstances. He said no, that was not the intent of the legislation, and would not be allowed. This was added to the journal.

While I agree the ability to restrict concealed carry should have been more clearly defined in the law itself, the intent of the law has been plainly stated.