SB11 & HB910 This week....

[harrycallahan]

here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Where did you get this information? Please cite it.

I think this is misinformation. Nothing against the OP. It just sounds to weird to be right.

[NorthTexas]

Same here, and posts on the other thread have multiple reporters saying that the Dutton/Huffines amendments were stripped out.

[hammer58]

here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new version of the amendment say exactly the same thing as the original but simply rearranged the wording? If so, why didn't they leave it alone and let it go back to the house for an up or down vote?

[JollyHappyDad]

Conference Committee status report has entry for today that "report read & filed with Secretary of the Senate"

[TVGuy]

here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Where did you get this information? Please cite it.

I think this is misinformation. Nothing against the OP. It just sounds to weird to be right.

I agree. Every news organization out there is saying the exact opposite. Time will tell.

[jmra]

here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Isn't this the difference in wording between the Dutton amendment and the Huffines amendment?

[baseballguy2001]

There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

[harrycallahan]

here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Isn't this the difference in wording between the Dutton amendment and the Huffines amendment?

No. The dutton amendment was as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

Edit:oops I misread the question.

[TVGuy]

There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Many of us disagree, are not mis-informed, and are not government lobbyists. You sound much like OCT or Huffines himself.

[arthurcw]

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Or trying to get SOMETHING passed so we can move forward instead of losing OC indefinitely.

[jmra]

There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

So, is the owner of this forum "terribly mis-informed" or a "government lobbyist"? Can't wait for an answer to this one.

[Salty1]

There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Are you telling us that you would rather see the Bill die rather than take what we can get and if it turns into an issue then deal with it in future sessions?

[baseballguy2001]

If the majority wants that language removed, (as you say) then why hasn't it been removed?

If it's un-needed, then why don't we have a bill?

Look, licensed open carry is fine with me, preferred actually. Those OCT guys can't get CHL's and that's why they say the 2A is their license. I don't agree with that.

I predicted at the beginning nothing would happen, open carry-wise, I'm sorry to say, I think I was right.

[jmra]

From what I'm seeing from the other threads the amendment has been removed in conference.

[poppo]

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Or trying to get SOMETHING passed so we can move forward instead of losing OC indefinitely.

Exactly. And IF wrongful stops actually turned out to be a problem, it could be addressed later as a "See, we told you this would happen".