TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks to Charles, Alice, TSRA, NRA, and to every single person on this board who took the time out to call/write/email.


Although the there may be debate on which bill was more important, that debate just boils down to personal opinion. The most important point is they 2 difficult bills have passed.

Sad day in Texas.

The fact that so many LEO Organizations seem to be coming out against the amendment, tells me that we need the amendment.

The amendment is just restating what the 4th amendment guarantees and what case law stands behind. If someone is engaged in an activity which is lawful, an LEO may not engage in a non consensual stop to question them about that activity.

It concerns me gravely that ANY LEO would protest this amendment. If we amended the HB910 to say "LEOs may not randomly mace people" or "No use of Taser on people that are not a threat" would we get them same blow back?

If an LEO is a student of the law, and wishes to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution, this amendment should not bother them in the least.

It appears that link is is only good if you get to it via the link two post above. It appears that it is no longer there. Gonna be a busy day in the Senate anyway, so we may have to wait a couple days. Look at the other business that has to get done.

HCR 62 (LC) Springer SP: Estes

Designating Nocona as the official Classic Car Capital of Texas for a 10-year period beginning in 2015.

HCR 35 (LC) Farney/ Button/ Springer/ King, Ken/ et al. SP: Schwertner

Designating the cowboy hat as the official State Hat of Texas.

HCR 76 (LC) Guillen SP: Uresti

Designating Poteet as the official Strawberry Capital of Texas for a 10-year period beginning in 2015.

If anyone attempts to claim "we ran out of time." Please be assured that Poteet being designated as the official Strawberry Capital of Texas was a very important issue this session.

CJD wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

The latter.

Where did the intent calendar disappear to? I saw it this morning.

Finally!

safety1 wrote: If you are not doing anything wrong...what does it matter? Show proof and move on, it's really that easy.
We come back in 2 years and get it removed.

Because freedom.

I was at Crawfish boil a few weeks ago and a younger guy was saying the same thing. I told him that I was going to ask to see his ID every time I ran into him at the party, but ONLY if he had a beer in his hand. After about the 10th time having his ID "checked" he understood my point.