TexasCHLforum.com

My wife was speeding through west Texas. I was the front seat passenger. A trooper pulled her over. She gave him both her licenses. The trooper asked if there were any guns in the car. She said, "I don't have one, but he does." The trooper leaned into the car and asked where I had the gun. I told him in my right front pocket. He said: "I won't touch mine if you don't touch yours." I assured him, with a smile, that I thought that was best course of action. A few minutes later he returned to the car with a written warning for her. We were back on our way.

He never even asked if I had a CHL.

This is how I expect most police encounters with citizens go down. No drama. I suspect that will continue to be the case...for most.

In my little town there are unlawful 30.06 signs on virtually all the municipal buildings. When I told a police officer about preemption of state law he assured me the signs were allowed 'to afford public safety.' So my suspicion is 30.07 signs will soon join the force. Unless, of course, SB 273/HB 226 get passed, including an amendment to cover 30.07. Indeed, I suspect those bills are being held in anticipation of the need for the 30.07 amendment.

Open Carry will be interesting for a while, throughout Texas, in cities big and small.

I tend to agree with you, Cajun, which is why I said I didn't feel the need for that amendment until I saw Acevedo's rant. I figured common sense would prevail, for the most part, on both sides. But that rant elevated one side to a new level. The amendment, therefore, merely brings some equality back into the equation.

Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

What happens when today is over? Is a third reading automatic (when), or does Calendars have to be involved again? Can amendments be offered at the third reading?
Thanks

CJD wrote:

thechl wrote:

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n institution of higher education...in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do.

A condition of employment would be considered a "rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution," which they "may not" do.

Perhaps I, alone, see the distinction. I shall not repeat it.

I just hope HB910, along with 226, 308, 905 and 937 all reach the governor's desk prior to pumpkin time.

Bladed wrote:

thechl wrote:And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.

Why do you think this provision is included in the bill?

[A]n institution of higher education...in this state may not adopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting license holders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.

The fact that universities wouldn't be able to prohibit faculty, staff, or students from carrying is the very reason the legislation is so controversial.

Interesting. I hope you're right. But I don't see anything there that prohibits a condition of employment. Indeed, my CHL allows me to legally carry at my workplace, but I won't be employed there if I do!

And speaking of guessing, my guess is that teachers will be prohibited from carrying into the classroom as a condition of employment. I see nothing in the bill that stops a university from having a policy that states employees may not carry a handgun to work. Indeed, I live under such an employment policy now, even though I'm perfectly legal carring into my building as a customer.