TexasCHLforum.com

Rep. Phillips says he wants to keep #opencarry the way the senate passed it...putting him at odds with law enforcement #txlege

If Rep Phillips has this sentiment and the Dutton and Huffines Amendments are semantically the same , why wouldn't it pass the House, handily ? They've already passed a nearly identical amendment. Seems like a concurrence vote wouldn't be that hard. I don't get it.

Now if Abbot is on record as saying he'd veto with that provision in it then I understand. But if the amendment just reiterates a previous court decision, then Abbot is a smart enough lawyer to see that the amendment is a redundancy, anyway.

Help me out here , Charles what am I missing ?

As far as Acevedo, he's not the only LEO in the state but he is Chief in the Capitol and has a very high profile with the media. Squeaky wheel and all that stuff !

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Low Budget Shooter wrote:So, under the new open carry law, Acevedo and his ilk think it would be "doing their job" to stop people who are peacefully open carrying and ask for their papers. Maybe the Dutton/Huffines amendment is more important that we thought! That doesn't mean the amendment is making the bill more likely or easier to pass, but it does shed some more light on its importance.

The Amendment makes HB910 much less likely to pass. It still may, but it affords the opportunity for Senators West and Ellis to kill it in the Senate, if the House does anything other than concur.

The Huffines amendment provides no protection to Texans. As Sen. Huffines himself argued on the floor of the Senate, it takes little more than carrying a gun to meet the requirements of his amendment and the reasonable suspicion requirement.

I must admit that I'm growing a bit weary of all of the discussion about Chief Acevedo. There's more than one city and town in Texas.

Chas.

that's what I was trying to point out earlier. But did you count how many times his name was thrown around last night on the floor of the house? I never heard the name of the Schertz Police Chief mentioned, or Lubbock's PC. He's given too much power in that building.

I'm hoping


"had planned" ... means "is going to"

@chucklindell · 2m 2 minutes ago

Author of open carry had planned to have House concur, tho, sending it to Gov. #txlege

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Low Budget Shooter wrote:So, under the new open carry law, Acevedo and his ilk think it would be "doing their job" to stop people who are peacefully open carrying and ask for their papers. Maybe the Dutton/Huffines amendment is more important that we thought! That doesn't mean the amendment is making the bill more likely or easier to pass, but it does shed some more light on its importance.

The Amendment makes HB910 much less likely to pass. It still may, but it affords the opportunity for Senators West and Ellis to kill it in the Senate, if the House does anything other than concur.

The Huffines amendment provides no protection to Texans. As Sen. Huffines himself argued on the floor of the Senate, it takes little more than carrying a gun to meet the requirements of his amendment and the reasonable suspicion requirement.

I must admit that I'm growing a bit weary of all of the discussion about Chief Acevedo. There's more than one city and town in Texas.

Chas.

Could all of the posturing from Chief Acevedo serve as reason to confirm? I think it's redundant and unnecessary, but he sure doesn't for some reason.

The Dutton amendment passed 133-10-1. I just don't see 58 reps doing an about face, but I guess one thing is for certain in politics: uncertainty. I will certainly take note if my rep changes tune.

Regardless of what happens, it is frustrating that we are still biting our nails on May 27.

Ok, so after soaking in some more of the dynamic, including the press conference, I do now think Sen Huffman's tactics were intended solely to get Huffines to pull the amendment, because of the potential challenges from LE. I still do not understand why West & Hall were unable or unwilling to counsel Huffines on the potential down side of the amendment, & if they did, why he didn't pull it - I really would like to know his motivation either way. On the other hand, I have been told by at least one Mom in a Facebook discussion on the subject, in no uncertain terms, that if OC passes, she and her friends intend to call 911 every time they see a gun, and will contend they are doing so because they feel threatened. So, in that regard, re-iterating 4th amendment protection in the bill, while lawfully redundant, might be a necessary reminder for all concerned.

Chris Jones ‏@cjones_cleat 2m2 minutes ago Austin, TX

Sen. @whitmire_john speaks to media at law enf press conf on #HB910 #opencarry @CLEAT #txlege

This is my opinion from a simple observance of the outcome of the possible paths which HB910 can take. This is in no way a dig at anyone, mearly my opinion.

So right now as it stands, the best possible path forward is a vote for concurrence in the house (regardless of how you feel about the Huffine amendment). This path puts the bill on the Gov's desk for most likely his signature.

Then there is the vote for nonconcurrence. This gives HB910 the possibility to die in conference committee if no agreement can be made, as well as the possibility to die in the senate due to a filibuster. So in essence, when law enforcement advocates for the house to vote for nonconcurrence, they are essentially voting for the worst case scenario for HB910 in its entirety? To me, a stand today against a concurrence vote means a stand against the entire effort to pass open carry. Again this is mearly my observation and opinion and is not meant as a slight against any one group or another.

Rick Harris wrote:

Rep. Phillips says he wants to keep #opencarry the way the senate passed it...putting him at odds with law enforcement #txlege

If Rep Phillips has this sentiment and the Dutton and Huffines Amendments are semantically the same , why wouldn't it pass the House, handily ? They've already passed a nearly identical amendment. Seems like a concurrence vote wouldn't be that hard. I don't get it.

The Dutton Amendment was a complete surprise and it was designed to do precisely what it has done, create a rift with law enforcement. Senators and Representatives talk.

Rick Harris wrote:Now if Abbot is on record as saying he'd veto with that provision in it then I understand. But if the amendment just reiterates a previous court decision, then Abbot is a smart enough lawyer to see that the amendment is a redundancy, anyway.

There is no 5th Circuit case law on point. Black is persuasive authority, but not controlling authority and who knows if the very conservative 5th Circuit will follow its logic? That's why I don't claim there's current constitutional protection. My argument is that protection of the Huffines amendment is illusory because all a LEO has to do is have something in addition to the open-carry of a handgun to justify a stop.

Rick Harris wrote:As far as Acevedo, he's not the only LEO in the state but he is Chief in the Capitol and has a very high profile with the media. Squeaky wheel and all that stuff !

Only in Austin. No one gives one whit what that California invader thinks, including my LEO buddies in the Houston area.

Chas.

If I can read between the lines and understand what Charles is saying, actually rather bluntly, it is that since the Senate failed to passed HB 910 as it was, that the House has now had the time to reflect and may not vote to concur on the Senate's version, which is for all practical purposes identical to the House version and HB 910, open carry will die. Furthermore, at the root of all this contention is the ability of police to profile an individual and make an investigatory or temporary detention as to ascertain whether or not an individual does in fact possess a CHL. I am not for or against profiling other than to say that it is a necessary part of policing and an area that the sometimes police are guilty of misusing. I don't know how to feel that as of now I may have to to accept defeat of HB 910 solely based on an amendment that is arguably redundant already and one that most of law enforcement is misrepresenting in order to meet their goal of defeating open carry. I do know this if HB 910 passes into law, law enforcement will have no issue finding probable cause when and should they need to make a stop. Should OC fail this session I won't be a happy voter because I'd expect my elected law makers to understand this already and that if there is a side that they need to err on it is NOT that of law enforcement, but rather those that they are elected to serve. I am sorry if this offends or is philosophical as it is not meant to be. Perhaps we should stop dancing around the real issue surround this bill and ask why?

Thanks, Charles.

The defeat of Open Carry and Campus Carry will be the greatest motivator for anti-gun groups in years. "When we can defeat them in Texas, we can defeat them anywhere!"

While I think most LEO are good apples, there certainly are some bad apples out there.

With the proliferation of security cameras, cell phone cameras, and more recently, personal body cams and groups such as CopWatch/CopBlock, I would respectfully argue the protections of the Huffines amendment are not illusory.

More and more bad apples will be caught perjuring themselves as a result of technology.

Any doubts about this can be quickly erased by doing some searches on YouTube.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There is no 5th Circuit case law on point. Black is persuasive authority, but not controlling authority and who knows if the very conservative 5th Circuit will follow its logic? That's why I don't claim there's current constitutional protection. My argument is that protection of the Huffines amendment is illusory because all a LEO has to do is have something in addition to the open-carry of a handgun to justify a stop.

Chas.

I would like OC to pass with or without this amendment. If it becomes law without the amendment, I would suggest when stopped, be non-confrontational, show your ID, note the officers name/badge number. After the fact, do a records request to determine PC. Ask for every document, recording, dashcam, email related to your stop. If everyone did this every time, I think there will be fewer stops and this will become a non-issue or will be easily fixed.

In reality, with the exception of a few areas, early on, it won't be an issue at all. I think most LEOs will have the same attitude with OC as with CC. I.e., a non-issue.

Charles, Since the 5th Circuit hasn't ruled similarly, why do the police officers feel the need to have probable cause to make a vehicle stop? What would be the difference in stopping a pedestrian?

Just trying to wrap my mind around this.

Lawmakers appear unmoved by police officers’ fierce opposition to open carry changes | @marissambarnett http://share.d-news.co/UiGr1cF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #txlege

Marissa Barnett
Published: May 27, 2015 2:51 pm
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... nges.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;