SB11 & HB910 This week....

[jimlongley]

. . .

Shenanigans, This entire session has been shenanigans LOL.

IOW, politics as usual.

[v7a]

@lmcgaughy tweet

Police across state today, incl. @CLEAT, Dallas Police Assoc and @HPOUTX speaking out against Huffines #opencarry amendment today #txlege

[tomneal]

jimlongley Wrote:

IOW, politics as usual.

On a lighter note:

“The word ‘politics’ is derived from ‘poly’ meaning ‘many’ and ‘ticks’ meaning ‘parasites‘“

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new ... ning_paras

[T0etager]

Why would the PD speak against the amendment when technically its just duplicating current law? Do they think if the amendment is not in the bill they can stop whom ever they wish with no probable cause? If they think that seeing a firearm worn IAW the bill will give them that cause Then the amendment should be in the bill. Those who would need that distinction will use any other reason to stop regardless of the wording.

[mojo84]

I wish someone would challenge the police leaders that oppose this to explain what the differences are in the amendment and current law based on court rulings and the 4th Amendment.

I too believe the fact they are pushing so hard against this amendment somewhat justifies the need for the amendment.

[Luggo1]

Maybe police are buoyed by their "tough on crime" constituency who view the 4th Amendment as a "loophole" or "technicality" when the subject of the search or stop is anyone but them or if they really really dislike the accused or the crime?

[Glockster]

Why would the PD speak against the amendment when technically its just duplicating current law? Do they think if the amendment is not in the bill they can stop whom ever they wish with no probable cause? If they think that seeing a firearm worn IAW the bill will give them that cause Then the amendment should be in the bill. Those who would need that distinction will use any other reason to stop regardless of the wording.

I come from a place where even though there is more case law than should be necessary to determine whether or not something was legal or illegal, until it is in B&W where someone going through the academy can touch it and read it...it often became subject to...interpretation. And with that, actual mileage may vary.

IMHO, this is a lot like dealing with those in the business world who protest having to have performance measures because they "already know" their performance. What gets measured gets done. Absent that, not having performance measures allows for that interpretation. If you have a measure of performance, then I can verify against that. That is typically pretty threatening because then you can be held accountable.

I think that the biggest concern that we should have in having something like this amendment duplicating current law is the risk that it doesn't fully incorporate common law or case law. That in codifying something, and not matching what is case law, that the law then becomes changed, different. I believe that can be a good thing if the case law is lacking or no longer fits with where things are, or it can be a bad thing if the legislative intent doesn't appear to capture the case law and then someone is able to make the argument that this must have been the (new) intent. Frankly, with all due respect to Chas., I am much less concerned about LEO noses out of joint and other hurt feelings (as an insult) that WE the people want to solidify and codify something for OUR benefit. The law in this matter is NOT for the LEO, it is for US. So unless the LEO concern is that they believe the law might cause them to do things that are contrary to our present rights, I don't particularly have any concern for hurt feelings.

Having said that, I am not saying that I wanted the amendment. I'm just simply talking about what I know from experience elsewhere about why at times folks have grumbled about codifying what was already existing case law.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I've been trying to stay out of this topic of discussion, other than explaining why the Huffines amendment is a major problem. That said, I feel compelled to point out something. Do you want to make a point, or pass open-carry? This is not the time for philosophical discussions. An attempt to get House concurrence will be made, but if that fails, then HB910 may not pass. Yes, it can go to conference, and yes, a conference report may come out, but there's absolutely no guarantee that both bodies will accept the report.

Chas.

[ScooterSissy]

Why would the PD speak against the amendment when technically its just duplicating current law? Do they think if the amendment is not in the bill they can stop whom ever they wish with no probable cause? If they think that seeing a firearm worn IAW the bill will give them that cause Then the amendment should be in the bill. Those who would need that distinction will use any other reason to stop regardless of the wording.

It's interesting the almost polar responses from some of the police organizations and leaders.

Some say we need to be able to do that.
Some say the amendment is a slap in the face, for suggesting that the police would do that.

[canvasbck]

I've been trying to stay out of this topic of discussion, other than explaining why the Huffines amendment is a major problem. That said, I feel compelled to point out something. Do you want to make a point, or pass open-carry? This is not the time for philosophical discussions. An attempt to get House concurrence will be made, but if that fails, then HB910 may not pass. Yes, it can go to conference, and yes, a conference report may come out, but there's absolutely no guarantee that both bodies will accept the report.

Chas.

Is there reason to suspect that the house won't concur, or is it your risk averse side speaking?

I mean that as a legitimate question and not a jab at your conservative nature. I understand the benefits of being risk averse when walking a bill through a system designed to make it very easy to kill a bill.

[mojo84]

I've been trying to stay out of this topic of discussion, other than explaining why the Huffines amendment is a major problem. That said, I feel compelled to point out something. Do you want to make a point, or pass open-carry? This is not the time for philosophical discussions. An attempt to get House concurrence will be made, but if that fails, then HB910 may not pass. Yes, it can go to conference, and yes, a conference report may come out, but there's absolutely no guarantee that both bodies will accept the report.

Chas.

It seems to me both sides, those for the amendment and those against, are getting caught up on the principle of having or not having it and not so much what it does.

It concerns me some the cops are so against it.Are they wanting to push the limits that may be a little less clear without it? It also concerns me some are so adamant about having it even though it won't make any real practical difference. Seems like this is a case of one or the other will need to take the high road, whatever that may be, and back off their principle.

Is this where we are on this?

[Glockster]

I've been trying to stay out of this topic of discussion, other than explaining why the Huffines amendment is a major problem. That said, I feel compelled to point out something. Do you want to make a point, or pass open-carry? This is not the time for philosophical discussions. An attempt to get House concurrence will be made, but if that fails, then HB910 may not pass. Yes, it can go to conference, and yes, a conference report may come out, but there's absolutely no guarantee that both bodies will accept the report.

Chas.

With all due respect Chas., I'll bite -- what then is it time for? I mean, we who are not you and not directly or even indirectly involved in the processes at hand can seemingly do little else other than have discussions and make points. Point us to something that we can do and I'm confident that we can do that and whatever you wish us to do that helps the process. I'm trying to politely understand what harm there is in people making points (within reason as I think that attacks come off badly and might tick someone off). Perhaps I'm simply reading too much into this but as your post came on the heels of my offering my own thoughts it seems like you're suggesting that somehow my point is causing harm and if so, am not understanding how exactly that is the case. Or was your post directed at something else other than my own above?

I appreciate all that you do, and certainly don't want to do harm to what is clearly the actual end goal we want.

[NotRPB]

I said earlier listen to Charles I 'm pretty sure he knows what's going on regarding the below issue:

not done yet folks ...

where we are on this is...:


‏


KVUE Television Austin> @MarkW_KVUE 39 seconds ago

.@ArtAcevedo talking w/ @SenRoyceWest, @whitmire_john. Law enforcement at Cap w/ concerns over #opencarry #txlege

Looks like there's a concerted effort underway to strip away yes votes from HB910 concurrence vote:

@lmcgaughy tweet

Police across state today, incl. @CLEAT, Dallas Police Assoc and @HPOUTX speaking out against Huffines #opencarry amendment today #txlege

Prediction: if House does not concur and HB910 goes to conference, you can stick a fork in the bill.

@AdamRacusin 2 minutes ago

@ArtAcevedo and other PD's across the state calling for #txlege to get rid of @DonHuffines #opencarry amendment.

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

@MarkW_KVUE 3 minutes ago

.@ArtAcevedo kicking off presser asking to drop #open carry #HB910 amd limiting ability to ask for license #txlege

[v7a]

Do you want to make a point, or pass open-carry? This is not the time for philosophical discussions. An attempt to get House concurrence will be made, but if that fails, then HB910 may not pass. Yes, it can go to conference, and yes, a conference report may come out, but there's absolutely no guarantee that both bodies will accept the report.

Now I'm a bit confused. Are you saying there's something else than can be done before/instead of a concurrence vote that will result in a higher chance of HB910 passing?

[v7a]

@MorganSmith tweet

@ArtAcevedo says he "really believes" @GovAbbott will veto #opencarry if amendment sticks prevent police from asking for licenses #txlege