TexasCHLforum.com

Why did the legislators even *care* what the police think about a law?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/01/op ... tcmp=hpbt2

The original bill included a "no-stop" provision barring police from demanding to see the license of someone simply for openly carrying their gun. Tea party legislators didn't want 2nd Amendment rights infringed, while Democrats worried about racial profiling, concerned that blacks and Hispanics might be asked for their licenses more than their white counterparts.

"If I get a gun, I guess I'd better put my hands up," state Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat who is black, said when the measure was debated on the Senate floor. Under pressure from police chiefs and law enforcement organizations, lawmakers stripped the measure from the final bill.

Who controls the state, the legislators or the police? Who cares what the police have to say about this? The legislators are the ones who are supposed to be in control and the police are just supposed to do what they are told (or do *nothing* if they don't agree with a law).

The original bill did not include that provision. It was added by amendment in the House by a rabid anti-gun Democrat, Harold Dutton, ostensibly to help ensure that minorities legally open carrying weren't subject to unwarranted harrassment. Whether Rep. Dutton was sincere or not, I can't say, but I thought at the time that that amendment was going to be the poison pill that sank the OC bill, and it almost did thanks to well-intended but politically naive tea party members who signed on to it and wouldn't let go when it became clear that law enforcement was going to flex their muscle to oppose it.

The Lege may or may not always follow what the LEO community wants, but they would be remiss if they didn't at least consider the LEO's views.

Scott Farkus wrote:The Lege may or may not always follow what the LEO community wants, but they would be remiss if they didn't at least consider the LEO's views.

But why should the legislature even *care* what the LEOs want? The LEOs don't have any power to do anything if the legislature does something they don't like. The LEOs are hired hands, nothing more. The legislature should be telling *them* what to do, not the other way around.

They probably look to them as the experts in the field and believe their opinions are worth consideration.

mojo84 wrote:They probably look to them as the experts in the field and believe their opinions are worth consideration.

Foolish them then... Might as well ask the guy who washes cars how cars should be designed...

The path to restoration of our constitutional rights should not be dependent upon how convenient it makes the job of our civil servants.

Lots of reasons.

The LEOs are mostly responsible professionals, experienced in many practical issues.

They have organization(s) that lobby, raise money, influence voters.

Legislators are constitutionally averse to alienating voters, and those who might influence voters, unnecessarily.

You never know when you might need a LEO to exercise good judgment and extend whatever courtesies an awkward situation may allow.

JALLEN wrote:Lots of reasons.

The LEOs are mostly responsible professionals, experienced in many practical issues.

They have organization(s) that lobby, raise money, influence voters.

Legislators are constitutionally averse to alienating voters, and those who might influence voters, unnecessarily.

You never know when you might need a LEO to exercise good judgment and extend whatever courtesies an awkward situation may allow.

In other words, they were threatened... Get rid of this or we won't let you slide when we catch you speeding or DWI... Business as usual, I guess... :(