HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[Charles L. Cotton]

Both of today's amendments are huge gains in my book -definitely worth waiting an extra day for. I have to say, though, I'm surprised Amendment 3 was approved. Charles's comments yesterday on one of the amendments made me think that the House would be hostile towards an amendment like this. I'm also curious why it wasn't considered yesterday. Was it intentionally held back? Were there more absences by the opposition in the House today?

Rep. Dutton came up with this on his own. You will note that it was not even read, much less discussed. That's all I'll say for now.

Chas.

Okay, I'll say just a little more, then I'll shut up.

Rep. Stickland, OCT and CATI are strongly hinting if not outright claiming that the Dutton Amendment has "unintentionally" achieved unlicensed open-carry. There are several problems with this claim. First, Stickland had nothing to do with the Dutton Amendment; it was written by Rep. Dutton and Rep. Rinaldi. Stickland had nothing to do with it, so his claim is . . . well, everyone knows what it is.

Secondly, are OCT/CATI and Stickland encouraging people to commit a crime by carrying a handgun without a license? While they will claim otherwise, that's the only rational interpretation of the claim that the inability of law enforcement to inquire about a license allows unlicensed people to carry a handgun. This gives some very important insight into the character and mindset of the people and organizations claiming the Dutton gave us backdoor unlicensed-carry. Dutton offered it to prevent harassment, but the zealots want to use it to promote lawlessness.

Finally, when one allows their ego and self-aggrandizement to take priority over the cause, one often shoots themselves and their cause in the proverbial foot. This false claim so proudly hailed by a vocal few has energized many in law enforcement to get involved with the goal of stripping the Dutton Amendment in the Senate. In doing so, they don't have to claim a desire to engage in racial profiling; they are arguing that they want to prevent unlawful activity sanctioned by OCT and Stickland. Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant OCT/CATI/Stickland!

Now I'll shut up, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Chas.

But this amendment is a very big deal. If nobody ever has to worry about being stopped to show a license, that’s closer to the unlicensed-carry freedom promoted by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford.

“Where do you think they got the idea?” Stickland asked slyly Tuesday. That was after a leader of the Dallas-based Come and Take It Texas open-carry group wrote on social media: “We unintentionally just got unlicensed open carry.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Wall]

If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

It will be beneficial to all Texas gun owners if Salty1's advice is taken to heart. This is how we make open-carry as successful has concealed-carry has been for 20 years.

Chas.

I wish you had a "Like Button" because I really like this. Common sense goes a long way.

[RHenriksen]

I sure hope the Republican primary candidates start queuing up NOW in Stickland's district.

[jimlongley]

I don't think he is necessarily saying a chl holder. Any crime that is discovered because a person was stopped for open carrying, even open carrying itself, could be tossed out because the cop did not have cause to stop the person. CHL aside. Imagine a murder suspect who was picked up just for properly openly carrying and the arrest and murder weapon is tossed out in court because the evidence was illegally obtained. Thus a murderer might go free. DA most certainly won't be happy. Now, I'm no lawyer but I beleive this to be what he is saying, and honestly it makes sense to me.

Instead of a "murder suspect" which implies that he already has the attention of the law, how about a sightly different scenario? Joe Doe moves from Colorado to TX with his parents and brings his hobby with him, growing pot for recreational use. He finds that Texas's soil has just the right nutrients to make his little hobby farm flourish, and he decides to sell off his surplus.

Having never been caught, he has no record to speak of, and having lived in TX for more than a year, he has acquired his CHL right after his 21st birthday, and on New Years Day 2017 he leaves his parents' house and saunters down the block to drop off some of his product at a friend's who has been dealing for him. He decides that since OC is now legal, and the law says he can't be stopped just because he is OCing, that he will flaunt it and OC.

The police in Austin have no clue that he is part of the new pot network they have discovered on the UTA campus, no idea that he is the one supplying the potent "Texas Tea" to the little group of small potatoes sub-dealers that they have caught so far.

As he walks down the street, an Austin PD patrolman sees him with his Glock fully exposed and under Chief Acevedo's standing order, issued that day at roll call, he ignores the law and stops and ID's the open carrier. Joe, being a little upset at being illegally stopped, particularly with a couple of pounds of "Texas Tea" in his backpack, backtalks the officer and the situation escalates just as we have seen so many times on Youtube and COPS, and the pot is discovered.

And the dénouement? The judge on the case drops all charges because the search was illegal on its face, Joe sues the city, department, and officer, and wins enough money to drop out of UTA and move back to CO where he opens a successful recreational pot farm.

[TexasCajun]

Both of today's amendments are huge gains in my book -definitely worth waiting an extra day for. I have to say, though, I'm surprised Amendment 3 was approved. Charles's comments yesterday on one of the amendments made me think that the House would be hostile towards an amendment like this. I'm also curious why it wasn't considered yesterday. Was it intentionally held back? Were there more absences by the opposition in the House today?

Rep. Dutton came up with this on his own. You will note that it was not even read, much less discussed. That's all I'll say for now.

Chas.

Okay, I'll say just a little more, then I'll shut up.

Rep. Stickland, OCT and CATI are strongly hinting if not outright claiming that the Dutton Amendment has "unintentionally" achieved unlicensed open-carry. There are several problems with this claim. First, Stickland had nothing to do with the Dutton Amendment; it was written by Rep. Dutton and Rep. Rinaldi. Stickland had nothing to do with it, so his claim is . . . well, everyone knows what it is.

Secondly, are OCT/CATI and Stickland encouraging people to commit a crime by carrying a handgun without a license? While they will claim otherwise, that's the only rational interpretation of the claim that the inability of law enforcement to inquire about a license allows unlicensed people to carry a handgun. This gives some very important insight into the character and mindset of the people and organizations claiming the Dutton gave us backdoor unlicensed-carry. Dutton offered it to prevent harassment, but the zealots want to use it to promote lawlessness.

Finally, when one allows their ego and self-aggrandizement to take priority over the cause, one often shoots themselves and their cause in the proverbial foot. This false claim so proudly hailed by a vocal few has energized many in law enforcement to get involved with the goal of stripping the Dutton Amendment in the Senate. In doing so, they don't have to claim a desire to engage in racial profiling; they are arguing that they want to prevent unlawful activity sanctioned by OCT and Stickland. Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant OCT/CATI/Stickland!

Now I'll shut up, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Chas.

But this amendment is a very big deal. If nobody ever has to worry about being stopped to show a license, that’s closer to the unlicensed-carry freedom promoted by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford.

“Where do you think they got the idea?” Stickland asked slyly Tuesday. That was after a leader of the Dallas-based Come and Take It Texas open-carry group wrote on social media: “We unintentionally just got unlicensed open carry.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My thoughts exactly when I started seeing this come up this morning. Don't you just love it when these doofuses manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory????

[AJSully421]

If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

It will be beneficial to all Texas gun owners if Salty1's advice is taken to heart. This is how we make open-carry as successful has concealed-carry has been for 20 years.

Chas.

True. No one benefits from haranging a cop about "muh rights" if they ask for ID. Show ID as requested, maybe send a note to the PD email about it. Only file a formal complaint in extreme circumstances.

[The Wall]

I'm thinking someone that decides to open carry because they don't think the police will be asking them if they have a license would be few and far between. The police would in most cases know if the person was licensed by the way they act. The CHL person wouldn't be nervous or looked worried at all. Now the non-licensed person would more than likely look like they were up to something. Body language would do them in. Wouldn't be worth the chance for a criminal or non-criminal to open carry without a CHL. Wouldn't want to lose my gun either let alone pay fines and do the jail time.

[mojo84]

I agree. I also think the more people that open carry in a professional nonshowy manner, ie. men not in skirts or dressed like a gangbanging thugs, and deal with others including cops in a respectful manner, the better off we will all be and the sooner more progress will be made.

Yes, you can call me Captain Obvious.

[Ruark]

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?

If I were inclined to OC (I doubt I will), I would carry a recording device along with a copy of the legislation.

Comply, record and complain afterwards (if necessary) sounds like a good policy.

Yes, but complain to who?

[A-R]

If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

It will be beneficial to all Texas gun owners if Salty1's advice is taken to heart. This is how we make open-carry as successful has concealed-carry has been for 20 years.

Chas.

[TXBO]

With very few exceptions, history has shown that criminals don't wear holsters.

[Tracker]

Okay, I'll say just a little more, then I'll shut up.

Rep. Stickland, OCT and CATI are strongly hinting if not outright claiming that the Dutton Amendment has "unintentionally" achieved unlicensed open-carry. There are several problems with this claim. First, Stickland had nothing to do with the Dutton Amendment; it was written by Rep. Dutton and Rep. Rinaldi. Stickland had nothing to do with it, so his claim is . . . well, everyone knows what it is.

Secondly, are OCT/CATI and Stickland encouraging people to commit a crime by carrying a handgun without a license? While they will claim otherwise, that's the only rational interpretation of the claim that the inability of law enforcement to inquire about a license allows unlicensed people to carry a handgun. This gives some very important insight into the character and mindset of the people and organizations claiming the Dutton gave us backdoor unlicensed-carry. Dutton offered it to prevent harassment, but the zealots want to use it to promote lawlessness.

Finally, when one allows their ego and self-aggrandizement to take priority over the cause, one often shoots themselves and their cause in the proverbial foot. This false claim so proudly hailed by a vocal few has energized many in law enforcement to get involved with the goal of stripping the Dutton Amendment in the Senate. In doing so, they don't have to claim a desire to engage in racial profiling; they are arguing that they want to prevent unlawful activity sanctioned by OCT and Stickland. Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant OCT/CATI/Stickland!

Now I'll shut up, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Chas.

that's a good argument for striking the amendment. Taking a guess, I'm thinking there's going to be a shakeout period where cops would be asking OCers to show their licenses. That would stop any OCT/CATI from trying to carry without a license. Once seeing someone openly carrying becomes more or less routine cops won't ask to see the license but the risk of them doing so would make anyone unlicensed think twice about OCing

[ScooterSissy]

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.

I think you missed my point. Yes, CHLs are one the most law abiding segment. But, it's not the CHL guy that I'm talking about.

Here's my (imagined) scenario. Bad guy with a gun is open carrying, counting on not being hassled. A cop just "has a feeling", and asks to see his CHL. He doesn't have one, so the cop does a full pat down, and finds crack. He makes his arrest. A sharp lawyer claims the initial stop was without legitimate probable cause, and all of the evidence gets tossed.

[ScooterSissy]

I don't think he is necessarily saying a chl holder. Any crime that is discovered because a person was stopped for open carrying, even open carrying itself, could be tossed out because the cop did not have cause to stop the person. CHL aside. Imagine a murder suspect who was picked up just for properly openly carrying and the arrest and murder weapon is tossed out in court because the evidence was illegally obtained. Thus a murderer might go free. DA most certainly won't be happy. Now, I'm no lawyer but I beleive this to be what he is saying, and honestly it makes sense to me.

If it is a murder suspect, they already have probable cause to stop you - you match the description of a person of interest.

The ONLY thing this amendment does is prevent harassment by the police of people open carrying a handgun. If you are stopped and asked to identify, they will need to have probable cause other than the fact that you are carrying a handgun openly. If they state they have probable cause, regardless of how flimsy it seems, record the encounter, comply after notifying them of the law and go about your business. It will be sorted out VERY quickly if you do have a CHL and aren't confrontational. If you feel your rights have been violated, speak with the appropriate department, file an FOIA request for the stop including any 911 calls pertaining to it and build a case that it was unjustified. When you have a solid case, take the officer and the department to court.

Frankly I don't think it will be a big deal. Open carry will require some amount of education of the public as well as training of the 911 dispatchers to ask questions and calm down panicked hoplophobes, but I anticipate it will be worked out relatively quickly. It may take a bit more time in urban areas with populations over 1,000,000 uh, I mean 750,000 no wait, 175,000.

I hope you don't think I'm saying this is a bad amendment, or that I'm even against it. Neither is the case. I'm all for it. My little imagined scenario above is just my personal thoughts on why I don't anticipate some policemen abusing the "probable cause" scenario.

In other words, I don't think cops are going to be making up excuses to harass folks.

[Ruark]

Just show your ID if asked when you open carry. They aren't trying to harras you and be honest, it does not put you out to comply.

I would show it to avoid a public mess, but I have a right to walk down a sidewalk without being confronted by a police officer with a "papers, please" command. That's why I made the original post. And I would certainly report it, file a complaint, etc.