Huffines Amendment Question

[thatguyoverthere]

Looks like this is a moot question related to HB 910 now based on the latest news I'm seeing, but I still have the question.

And sorry, this may be a little rambling, but age tends to do that to me sometimes. So please forgive my wanderings, but I am trying to get to a point.

And also, I may be wrong in some of my presuppositions, but feel free to correct me if that's the case also.

Whether open carry in Texas passes this session or not, observing the process (what little I could) has been both exciting and educational. I've learned something about the workings of the legislature and a little bit about the "politics" of it all.

But now I have a question on a different, but very related, subject. There was a lot of discussion and debate regarding the Huffines amendment, which basically added a prohibition against the police being able to stop a person based only on that person openly carrying a handgun. It was interesting to hear all the opinions and the sometimes heated debate of those who were for or against the amendment.

I suppose my question is aimed mostly at any LEOs who may be forum members here, or anyone else who may have been opposed to that amendment. Simply: why would you oppose that amendment?

I'm honestly not looking to start any kind of cop bashing thread. I'm just looking for an explanation of what is wrong with that amendment, and what is wrong stated in more detail than what I've heard. Really, the only things I've heard is several police chiefs and certain others say that it would make the officers' job "more dangerous" or it would hinder "public safety."

Theoretically a LEO already has to have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity even for a simple Terry stop. So what's wrong with a statement in the law that says simply that doing this legal activity (openly carrying a holstered handgun) will not be considered suspicious activity?

From the amendment proponents' side, I've heard a comparison to the fact that a LEO cannot randomly pull over a driver just to check to see if they have a valid driver's license, with no other reason. Some people say that is an invalid comparison. I personally think it's not. But here's another comparison that you might consider.

Remember the days (not so long ago) that LEOs did quite routinely pull over certain people because the LEO said to himself: "that person does not look like they should be driving around in this neighborhood." After many court cases, some Federal oversight of some police departments, and much officer retraining, we've finally learned that it is unacceptable to stop a person just for looking like they don't belong in a certain neighborhood.

So how about we take the old "looks like they shouldn't be driving around in this neighborhood" and replace it with the new "looks like they shouldn't be walking around with a gun in this neighborhood." If the old statement has basically been deemed illegal (or at least improper), I don't see why the new statement would also not be deemed illegal (or improper).

So again, if we agree that it would be improper to stop someone based solely on them doing something that is legal for certain persons to do, then what is the objection to simply adding a statement to the law that basically simply says "this is a legal activity?"

[thatguy]

Looks like this is a moot question related to HB 910 now based on the latest news I'm seeing, but I still have the question.

And sorry, this may be a little rambling, but age tends to do that to me sometimes. So please forgive my wanderings, but I am trying to get to a point.

And also, I may be wrong in some of my presuppositions, but feel free to correct me if that's the case also.

Whether open carry in Texas passes this session or not, observing the process (what little I could) has been both exciting and educational. I've learned something about the workings of the legislature and a little bit about the "politics" of it all.

But now I have a question on a different, but very related, subject. There was a lot of discussion and debate regarding the Huffines amendment, which basically added a prohibition against the police being able to stop a person based only on that person openly carrying a handgun. It was interesting to hear all the opinions and the sometimes heated debate of those who were for or against the amendment.

I suppose my question is aimed mostly at any LEOs who may be forum members here, or anyone else who may have been opposed to that amendment. Simply: why would you oppose that amendment?

I'm honestly not looking to start any kind of cop bashing thread. I'm just looking for an explanation of what is wrong with that amendment, and what is wrong stated in more detail than what I've heard. Really, the only things I've heard is several police chiefs and certain others say that it would make the officers' job "more dangerous" or it would hinder "public safety."

Theoretically a LEO already has to have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity even for a simple Terry stop. So what's wrong with a statement in the law that says simply that doing this legal activity (openly carrying a holstered handgun) will not be considered suspicious activity?

From the amendment proponents' side, I've heard a comparison to the fact that a LEO cannot randomly pull over a driver just to check to see if they have a valid driver's license, with no other reason. Some people say that is an invalid comparison. I personally think it's not. But here's another comparison that you might consider.

Remember the days (not so long ago) that LEOs did quite routinely pull over certain people because the LEO said to himself: "that person does not look like they should be driving around in this neighborhood." After many court cases, some Federal oversight of some police departments, and much officer retraining, we've finally learned that it is unacceptable to stop a person just for looking like they don't belong in a certain neighborhood.

So how about we take the old "looks like they shouldn't be driving around in this neighborhood" and replace it with the new "looks like they shouldn't be walking around with a gun in this neighborhood." If the old statement has basically been deemed illegal (or at least improper), I don't see why the new statement would also not be deemed illegal (or improper).

So again, if we agree that it would be improper to stop someone based solely on them doing something that is legal for certain persons to do, then what is the objection to simply adding a statement to the law that basically simply says "this is a legal activity?"

Two observations or 2 cents,

1. I would say most citizens don't know that they have certain rights or don't have to answer certain questions. If a police officer asks them for ID or what they are doing most would think they have to answer or produce ID. Subsequently, most citizens think that police won't be able to do their jobs with said amendment, that we are taking away police powers.

2. Most police officers are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

[jmra]

The problems I had with the amendment:
1. It doesn't do anything. If officers are not going to respect the constitution they are not going to respect the wording of the amendment. (I believe most officers respect the constitution)
2. Including this amendment is punishing the child before its done anything wrong. If we see that officers are not respecting the constitution we have several avenues to address it including the next session.
But, now is not the time for arguing what should have been. It is a time to enjoy an historic moment.

[louisf1]

The problems I had with the amendment:
1. It doesn't do anything. If officers are not going to respect the constitution they are not going to respect the wording of the amendment. (I believe most officers respect the constitution)
2. Including this amendment is punishing the child before its done anything wrong. If we see that officers are not respecting the constitution we have several avenues to address it including the next session.
But, now is not the time for arguing what should have been. It is a time to enjoy an historic moment.

[srothstein]

As a retired police officer, I think the amendment was unnecessary. I thought it was much ado about nothing and did not care either way, at first. I actually agree that the amendment MIGHT help cut down on the equivalent of racial profiling (gun owners), if not on real racial profiling.

But I opposed it because I think it would be a simple thing to abuse. Think about how easy it would have been for a conference committee to change it to say may stop instead of may not stop. And I know that would still be unconstitutional, but we have laws like that on the books right now. For example, we have a law that says police may stop any motorcyclist to check if his helmet is DOT approved. And we have the law that says you must show your CHL when stopped and asked for your regular ID.

I always worry more about how laws can be abused by unscrupulous officers and legislators more than about what good they can do if handled properly.

[retrieverman]

2. Most police officers are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

Really? On what data are you basing this statement?

From what I've read on the subject of OC, the police unions were squealing like a pig under a gate (no pun intended) to keep the amendment or keep the entire bill from passing.

[jmra]

2. Most police officers are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

Really? On what data are you basing this statement?

From what I've read on the subject of OC, the police unions were squealing like a pig under a gate (no pun intended) to keep the amendment or keep the entire bill from passing.

Link?

[winters]

2. Most police officers are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

Really? On what data are you basing this statement?

From what I've read on the subject of OC, the police unions were squealing like a pig under a gate (no pun intended) to keep the amendment or keep the entire bill from passing.

Link?

it doesnt require a link. goto google and do a search... or just watch the news.

[thatguy]

2. Most police officers "that I know" are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

Really? On what data are you basing this statement?

From what I've read on the subject of OC, the police unions were squealing like a pig under a gate (no pun intended) to keep the amendment or keep the entire bill from passing.

I edited my statement..

[jmra]

2. Most police officers are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

Really? On what data are you basing this statement?

From what I've read on the subject of OC, the police unions were squealing like a pig under a gate (no pun intended) to keep the amendment or keep the entire bill from passing.

Link?

it doesnt require a link. goto google and do a search... or just watch the news.

Really? That's your response? He just blasted someone for making a statement without supporting data and then turns around and does the same thing. And then you do the same thing.

[JSThane]

2. Most police officers are definitely pro-2A and this amendment insulted their intelligence.

Really? On what data are you basing this statement?

From what I've read on the subject of OC, the police unions were squealing like a pig under a gate (no pun intended) to keep the amendment or keep the entire bill from passing.

You just answered your own question. The unions, or more accurately, their leadership, ceased to speak for the membership a long time ago. It's one of the main reasons why I never joined my department's union: They agitate for meaningless benefits and political causes, while never actually affecting real change or supporting anyone's rights.

See also: Killing the Golden Goose, The Union Who Cried Wolf, and many others. (But I make light. )

Unions are a necessary evil, but never forget that they ARE evil if allowed to go their own way. Far too often, this has been the case, and police unions are no exception.