HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[joelamosobadiah]

Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

If they live there now, they are locals. It is what it is.

This^

Difference between locals and natives.

[Beiruty]

When the senate would vote on HB910.

[mr1337]

Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

If they live there now, they are locals. It is what it is.

This^

Difference between locals and natives.

Indeed. I'm an Austin local, although I moved here 4 years ago from MS.

It's going to be tough getting these liberals out of office though. Austin is a melting pot of people from all over (yes, mostly Commiefornia) trying to change the laws to reflect those of where they came from.

Maybe it's because we have water.

I think Denver is going through the same struggle, because it's seen as a "young and hip" city, although the rest of the state has mostly conservative values, at least when it comes to 2nd Amendment.

I think we're getting there though, slowly but surely.

[jerry_r60]

Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

Nailed it.

I'm not real clear on the law but I think there is case law where LEO's can stop cars for license check without any other probable cause. I'm not supporting this but I guess the comparable thing would be all people carrying. We see it at license (DUI) checkpoints.

I think the Texas case is Lujan vs State

count said "...A brief suspicionless stop at a checkpoint is constitutionally permissible if its primary purpose is to confirm drivers' licences and registration and not general crime control...."

The reason the justices have allowed that is that it's at a checkpoint where everyone is being stopped. That ensures it's not profiling. The courts have been clear that stopping motorists at random is not permissible. So an Open Carry/CHL checkpoint might fly, but not stopping individuals at random.

Yeah I've read that it can't be random. If there is a policy over a period of time to check every one you see, that would not be random.

[jerry_r60]

Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

If they live there now, they are locals. It is what it is.

It's frustrating that policies in some other states hurt individuals and businesses, driving people to migrate here with more favorable policies but then when they go vote, they still vote for politicians supporting the same types of polices that created problems where they came from.

[mr1337]

NRA is putting out a CTA for Open Carry

[video][/video]

[RoyGBiv]

It's going to be tough getting these liberals out of office though. Austin is a melting pot of people from all over (yes, mostly Commiefornia) trying to change the laws to reflect those of where they came from.

This is satire... if you can make it through to the end...
VMI77 posted it in another thread earlier today, but it fits here...

Makes the point quoted above.

[video][/video]

[stash]

In view of the fact that the NRA has put out a CTA, could OC be in trouble?

[v7a]

Herman: Why Democrats voted for Texas open carry bill

The Texas House voted 101-42 this week to allow licensed open carry of handguns. Every Republican voted for it. Every Democrat voted against it, except seven.
I looked for similarities among those seven: Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City; Abel Herrero, Robstown; Tracy King, Batesville; Oscar Longoria, Mission; Joe Moody, El Paso; Joe Pickett, El Paso; and Richard Peña Raymond, Laredo.

Five of the seven Democrats — all but the two El Pasoans — represent smaller-town/rural districts. This fits in with the notion that smaller-town/rural Texans are more comfortable around guns than many big-city folks are. A significant majority of Democrats in the House are big-city folks.

...

After the House vote, a reader asked, “Why is Texas so determined to make those of us who do not feel comfortable with people running around carrying weapons unwelcome?”

My answer: Because a large majority of Texas’ lawmakers feel the rights of some people should not be restricted by the discomfort of others.

To me, and maybe to you, open carry is kind of creepy, as are some of the more strident proponents of it (maybe the ones Moody said “probably can’t get a license”). But there’s going to be a long list if we start banning things I think are creepy. Bye-bye to vapor cigarettes, many tattoos and most body piercings.

To me, the creepiest thing about the House bill is that part that bars a cop from asking to see an open carrier’s license. Seems weird. The Senate should unweird that.

[jmra]

Herman: Why Democrats voted for Texas open carry bill

The Texas House voted 101-42 this week to allow licensed open carry of handguns. Every Republican voted for it. Every Democrat voted against it, except seven.
I looked for similarities among those seven: Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City; Abel Herrero, Robstown; Tracy King, Batesville; Oscar Longoria, Mission; Joe Moody, El Paso; Joe Pickett, El Paso; and Richard Peña Raymond, Laredo.

Five of the seven Democrats — all but the two El Pasoans — represent smaller-town/rural districts. This fits in with the notion that smaller-town/rural Texans are more comfortable around guns than many big-city folks are. A significant majority of Democrats in the House are big-city folks.

...

After the House vote, a reader asked, “Why is Texas so determined to make those of us who do not feel comfortable with people running around carrying weapons unwelcome?”

My answer: Because a large majority of Texas’ lawmakers feel the rights of some people should not be restricted by the discomfort of others.

To me, and maybe to you, open carry is kind of creepy, as are some of the more strident proponents of it (maybe the ones Moody said “probably can’t get a license”). But there’s going to be a long list if we start banning things I think are creepy. Bye-bye to vapor cigarettes, many tattoos and most body piercings.

To me, the creepiest thing about the House bill is that part that bars a cop from asking to see an open carrier’s license. Seems weird. The Senate should unweird that.

Agreed with this guy until the last sentence. It's funny that the amendment with the most votes appears to be the one everyone is freaking out about.

[mr1337]

Herman: Why Democrats voted for Texas open carry bill

The Texas House voted 101-42 this week to allow licensed open carry of handguns. Every Republican voted for it. Every Democrat voted against it, except seven.
I looked for similarities among those seven: Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City; Abel Herrero, Robstown; Tracy King, Batesville; Oscar Longoria, Mission; Joe Moody, El Paso; Joe Pickett, El Paso; and Richard Peña Raymond, Laredo.

Five of the seven Democrats — all but the two El Pasoans — represent smaller-town/rural districts. This fits in with the notion that smaller-town/rural Texans are more comfortable around guns than many big-city folks are. A significant majority of Democrats in the House are big-city folks.

...

After the House vote, a reader asked, “Why is Texas so determined to make those of us who do not feel comfortable with people running around carrying weapons unwelcome?”

My answer: Because a large majority of Texas’ lawmakers feel the rights of some people should not be restricted by the discomfort of others.

To me, and maybe to you, open carry is kind of creepy, as are some of the more strident proponents of it (maybe the ones Moody said “probably can’t get a license”). But there’s going to be a long list if we start banning things I think are creepy. Bye-bye to vapor cigarettes, many tattoos and most body piercings.

To me, the creepiest thing about the House bill is that part that bars a cop from asking to see an open carrier’s license. Seems weird. The Senate should unweird that.

Agreed with this guy until the last sentence. It's funny that the amendment with the most votes appears to be the one everyone is freaking out about.

It also seems that the majority of people don't understand the 4th Amendment either.

[extremist]

You know, a LOT of my feelings about these cop-stops would depend on the nature of the interaction. If a passing officer just briefly paused, glanced at my CHL, said "thanks, have a good one" and kept walking, that might be tolerable now and then. But if he acts in a domineering manner, attracting attention, takes my gun "for your own safety" while he examines my CHL/ID, then tells me to stand there (maybe with a couple of other officers who have arrived by now) while he moseys back to his cruiser to run a warrant check (while a crowd gathers) or mutters for 10 minutes on his shoulder mic, well, you get the picture... that would be a different matter.

Exactly right. If this amendment doesn't get included, dontcha think the Dallas, Plano, Austin, San Antonio cops will be treating open carriers with a little more attitude than other localities? Probably - Betcha.

Not that I think it is going to be a huge population doing it mind you. I've been up to Oklahoma a few times since it passed there - never seen it.

James

[extremist]

I could absolutely see Art Acevedo telling the Austin PD to give open carriers with pistols as hard of a time as possible, no matter how lawful their activity is.

Exactly - I see this happening in the localities that are vocally opposing Open Carry passage.

Just like the cities that continue to post 30.06 signs on Government owned buildings that they know are not enforceable.

James

[RPBrown]

When can we expect either the House to put SB 17 or the Senate to put HB 910 in a committee?

[RHenriksen]

When can we expect either the House to put SB 17 or the Senate to put HB 910 in a committee?

When the two legislative bodies quit their battle of egos, I'm afraid - and not before.