TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath

ScooterSissy wrote:
locke_n_load wrote:
Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?
This. The only problem with the amendment - no teeth.
Just like how unenforceable signs being posted by cities - previously no punishment listed if the law is broken, so municipalities posted without repercussion.
I suspect the first time some DA finds a real crime thrown out because the initial stop was initiated because of OC but had no real reason for being stopped, thus the whole search was thrown out; it will suddenly find some teeth.

What are the odds that some real crime will be thrown out? CHLs, soon HLs??, are one of the most (if not the most) law abiding segment of the population we have documentation for.

G.A. Heath

ROFL, I just spit water all over my notebook. "Is Mr Stickland a coauthor of this bill?" "No Mr. Stickland is not a coauthor of this bill." "Mr. Speaker this is a good bill." Edit to add this was during the hazing of Rep. Wray on HB2419

G.A. Heath

locke_n_load wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TBJK wrote:Am I the only one bothered by admendment 12? Not that I intend on carrying extra mags but would like the option too without it being criminalized.
That amendment was tabled; it's not in HB910. Only one amendment was attached and it was a very good one, i.e. Shaefer's 18.

Chas.
Hey Charles, in layman's terms, what exactly does Shaefer's 18th amendment to 910 do exactly?

I'm not Charles, but with the weather around Houston he may be preoccupied at the moment but a link to the text of the amendment is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially this amendment reduces the penalty for a 30.06 violation to a Class C and a fine of $200, unless it can be proven that the Licensee was given notice after entering the property and failed to depart after receiving notice.

G.A. Heath

I suspect that there will be at least one hissy fit (Stickland) and one anti-gun pouting session (Nevarez) but that HB910 will be engrossed to the Senate without too much trouble.

G.A. Heath

Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

G.A. Heath

mojo84 wrote:
G.A. Heath wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.
Thank you sir.

Welcome. Did you guys find it on the video? The part where Phillips takes Strickland to the woodshed starts at about the 1:33:00 of the second video.

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... p_id=10745" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes sir. I have the sound byte ready, and I am still working on my show notes, but it will be in Episode 55 of my podcast.

G.A. Heath

mojo84 wrote:
G.A. Heath wrote:Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

Phillips said it to Stickland towards the end of the day when Stickland was begging for his unlicensed open carry bill to be considered in committee.

Thank you sir.

G.A. Heath

Regarding the statement that OCT killed unlicensed carry, can anyone give me a heads up as to who said it or to whom the statement was directed to so that I do not have to watch all the video to find it?

G.A. Heath

SA-TX wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
K5GU wrote:
v7a wrote:'Prince of POO' forces delay in open carry, _______ bills
Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, said he will attempt to force a vote on constitutional carry on Friday. If the House refuses, he said he has 162 amendments he can offer to make the bill less restrictive. Open carry opponents are expected to submit a number of their own amendments, including one to bar open carry by those who have lost their Texas concealed handgun licenses.
I hope that's a typo, but 6 and 2 are not that close on the keyboard...
I don't know what bill Stickland would be "forcing a vote on" ? His HB 195 is still waiting to go to committee.
And if he really has that many amendments to his bill, that sounds like a re-write is in order.

He'll probably offer it as an amendment to HB910. He stood on the steps of the Capitol and proudly proclaimed that he will try to amend it to every bill dealing with guns.

Chas.
Isn't that what Sen. Huffines did and it was voted down soundly?

I'm torn between the bird in the hand vs. the two in the bush. I understand strategically that licensed OC is the path of least resistance and seems poised to pass & be signed into law. It is an improvement over current law so I support it. On the other hand, I'm glad that Rep. Stickland and Sen. Huffines are asking the question "Why should the state be involved in this exercise of a constitutional right at all?" If only more lawmakers at all levels asked such questions!

As much of a tough spot as it might put those in who support licensed OC but not unlicensed or constitutional carry, we have a governor who seems to have said he'll sign any of the above. Taking him up on that offer is awfully tempting.

I don't know what I would do as a member but as a Texan and CHLer, the only way I can lose would be for some poison pill to be attached to the bill and not even get licensed OC. If something restoring even more liberty makes it into law, so much the better.

SA-TX

The problem is that unlicensed OC could be that poison pill that kills this bill, but that is not what many are worried about. What most folks are worried about is the fact that he reportedly has 162 amendments ready to be offered for this bill and simply voting each and everyone of them down along with killing all the anti-gun amendments will delay this bill to the point that we could see it die. Time is not on our side here, and the extremist positions from both ends are seemingly joining forces to delay this bill to death as well as any other pro-gun measures.

G.A. Heath

v7a wrote:I can just imagine Stickland's 162 amendments:

Amendment 1: Exempt people whose first name starts with J from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 2: Exempt people whose last name starts with S from needing a license to conceal or open carry.
Amendment 3: etc...

Are the people who voted for Stickland aware that this Friday he'll be acting as Bloomberg's useful idiot?

I'm not sure, but I personally find it ironic that OCT's own man may be "standing in the way of Open Carry" by killing it with amendments. If that is the case I will expect them to honor their promise of running a candidate in the primary of everyone who stood in the way of Open Carry.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 10 matches

Re: HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

Re: HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

Re: HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

Re: HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

Re: HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

Re: HB910 Friday April 17, House Calendar for 2nd Reading

Re: HB910 Friday April 17, House Calendar for 2nd Reading

Re: HB910 Friday April 17, House Calendar for 2nd Reading

Re: HB910 On Apr. 14 House Calendar for 2nd Reading

Re: HB910 On Apr. 14 House Calendar for 2nd Reading