Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Consider how much "cleaning up" we have done on concealed carry. It is still a work in progress after 20 years.K.Mooneyham wrote:I'm with those who want to just get this OC law on the books. It can always be "cleaned up" later if it turns out that there are problems or issues with how things are going.
When walking around in public places becomes the equivalent to a secured area in an airport, I would agree we should carry externally viewable "badges". That said, I believe there's a term for treating open public places as secure areas - it's called a police state. I hope we never get there.The Wall wrote:Well we could do it like I had to do while working at an airport. If working in a secure area of the airport you had to have your ID displayed at all times. Most of us used lanyards and had them hanging around our necks. We were all required to confront anyone that wasn't displaying their ID. If they couldn't display a proper airport ID the police were called. TSA would periodically send people out into the secure areas without ID to test it out. If you neglected to confront/challenge the individual you could get in some real trouble including losing your job. The airport would be fined. I manage to nab several of them in the years I worked there. I'm not serious about this for open carry by the way. Just telling a story. I know it was already suggested wearing some kind of badge. A stupid idea for sure.
You've stated my view as well. From a slightly different angle, but still well said. I've long said I felt that open carry should be allowed for anyone, and a license required for concealed carry.arthurcw wrote:That's the historical precedent. An exposed weapon has always been a symbol of power/citizenship. Concealed weapons were always something for people up to no good like thieves, con men, gamblers, ladies of negotiable affection, and lawyers (Sorry, couldn't resist. Don't ban me Charles). Which is why I HATE the term "Constitutional Carry." Yes, I know that's gonna get me flamed. But in the context the Constitution was written, they had these ideas in mind. Original Intent, I believe, was to allow all citizens to openly carry as a symbol of the new power structure. Concealed weapons were kinda taboo. So I don't have a problem with states regulating concealed carry*. But unlicensed open carry should be a the norm. Because if you're up to something you want to appear weak and harmless. Cops know this.K5GU wrote: After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.
When they (LEOs) see a $50-$200 holster and a guy walking calmly with his family they aren't gonna say, "hmmm... PERP!" ...unless they have no option because of a CLEO's directives.
* and if the state wants to allow concealment with no licence, I'm cool with that. They've made their choice of regulations. None.
^This. I think I said elsewhere, it's just a small minority of CLEO's that drive the need for the amendment in the first place. Were it not for Acevedo and his ilk, it would have been a non-issue from the get go. It's worth passing it absent the amendment just to get the reduction in penalty. And I'd rarely OC anyway. But absent the amendment I would NEVER OC in Houston or Austin. And I'd wager even with the amendment, those CLEO's would find a way around it.nitrogen wrote:Anyone remember how many times the legislature had to define "traveling" for legal carry in your car without a chl, for cities like Houston to get it? They finally just decided to say forget it and make it completely legal, because police departments (austin and houston from what I remember) would ignore the law and make up their own interpretation.
Pretty sure thats why "The Amendment" is so important to some people. We know that, ahem, THOSE PD departments will do whatever they want if they can figure a loophole.
having said that, let's just get this passed already.
This has been the worst legislative session I've seen in 35 years. This includes the years when Democrats were in control, but that was also at a time when there were pro-gun Democrats.arthurcw wrote:All I know is this is my 3rd Session and with each one I pay closer attention and learn more. I'm TRULY taken aback by this one. Maybe I didn't pay close enough attention last time. Maybe I wasn't as engaged. Or maybe, as I hope, this is one was just uglier and as Tea Partiers and Amateurs become vets, they'll be less like spoiled adolescents and more like the unhinged teens I expected.sugar land dave wrote:Imagine how Charles feels after doing this for years!mojo84 wrote:jmra wrote:Man this has been a roller coaster ride!mojo84 wrote:DMN Politics @DMNPolitics 2m2 minutes ago
Open carry's passage seems likely, after key lawmakers strip amendment opposed by police | @tombenning http://share.d-news.co/OHY1TUS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #txlege
Yes sir, it sure has. I'm pretty much numb about it now. Won't get too up or down until the session ends or the Governor signs it.
On a positive note, the procedural workings were more prominent this time so I really learned how they can play silly buggers with these bills. Not that it's a positive thing, but I did learn a lot. Enough that I won't be ordering sausage for a while.
On a related note: Wouldn't it have been cool to have live video feeds when they carried sword canes and respect was something you did not lose?
No law will prevent what you described.baseballguy2001 wrote:. . . Once I had an LEO try to give me a ticket for operating a vehicle, and I was the passenger.
I fought the ticket and won. She said she observed me behind the wheel, she could tell because I had a ball cap on. All four of us did. The driver and I both had ballcaps and sunglasses on. I was never driving, but she claimed erroneously, that I was. She also said we ran a red light. (which video proved false too)
This is an excellent analysis. Well done.fickman wrote:There's the concern.K5GU wrote:I'm guessing that a LEO who sees a person with a holstered gun in public has it in his/her mind (suspects) that the person is not licensed, and thus is a criminal?
Or, maybe the LEO sees a person with a holstered gun in public and has it his/her mind (suspects) that the person HAS a license.
After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.
The default perspective probably changes department by department, if not LEO by LEO.
Some cities are likely to antagonize open carriers to discourage the practice. I wouldn't put it past some to do a felony stop with guns drawn to intimidate legal open carriers, or to stop and demand to see the license (and call in a check to dispatch) every city block or so.
Most won't, but it's happened in other states.
For the ones that would never do this, the Amendment is insulting.
Also, I know many LEOs that are pro-2A to the core, but there's conflict when they start to think of losing flexibility in doing their job. Sometimes "suspicious" is determined using the smell test, and it doesn't write into a report very well. I can empathize with this - "it didn't seem right," "why?" "because I wasn't born yesterday." They want to keep as many avenues for stopping the suspicious person that fails the smell test as possible.
There are interesting intersections where conservative, pro-freedom, pro-America, and pro-LEO seem to have friction. I get the concerns over "militarization of police", but that is very insulting to most LEOs I know. Their perspective is that the bad guys are more organized and better funded than ever, and they are desperately trying to keep up. It's about safety. I get the discourse between "I don't have to answer that" and "You'd answer if you had nothing to hide." I am a principled / philosophical thinker at the core. I hate pragmatism, but I use it as a tool so that "perfect" doesn't become the enemy of "good" or "better".
All that to say, the law currently prohibits LEOs from gratuitously stopping legal gun owners without suspicion of another crime. Preemptively reasserting it in the law cause unnecessary friction with a group that would otherwise be very supportive. Will somebody abuse it? Probably. So then, with concrete examples, we come back and clean it up once we show the need. Sometimes you have to let story play out and we do ourselves a disservice by trying to fast forward to the end.
Democrats, misguided, soul-sucking, anti-freedom as they are, at least have the integrity and self-respect to say: I recognize the principles and platform of the Democratic Party, and I support them.Charles L. Cotton wrote:This has been the worst legislative session I've seen in 35 years. This includes the years when Democrats were in control, but that was also at a time when there were pro-gun Democrats.
Chas.
My thoughts exactly. And I guess we're still on topic "HB 910 Conference Committee" since we're addressing the controversial "Dutton/Huffines" amendments, which were removed in conference.Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is an excellent analysis. Well done.fickman wrote:There's the concern.K5GU wrote:I'm guessing that a LEO who sees a person with a holstered gun in public has it in his/her mind (suspects) that the person is not licensed, and thus is a criminal?
Or, maybe the LEO sees a person with a holstered gun in public and has it his/her mind (suspects) that the person HAS a license.
After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.
The default perspective probably changes department by department, if not LEO by LEO.
Some cities are likely to antagonize open carriers to discourage the practice. I wouldn't put it past some to do a felony stop with guns drawn to intimidate legal open carriers, or to stop and demand to see the license (and call in a check to dispatch) every city block or so.
Most won't, but it's happened in other states.
For the ones that would never do this, the Amendment is insulting.
Also, I know many LEOs that are pro-2A to the core, but there's conflict when they start to think of losing flexibility in doing their job. Sometimes "suspicious" is determined using the smell test, and it doesn't write into a report very well. I can empathize with this - "it didn't seem right," "why?" "because I wasn't born yesterday." They want to keep as many avenues for stopping the suspicious person that fails the smell test as possible.
There are interesting intersections where conservative, pro-freedom, pro-America, and pro-LEO seem to have friction. I get the concerns over "militarization of police", but that is very insulting to most LEOs I know. Their perspective is that the bad guys are more organized and better funded than ever, and they are desperately trying to keep up. It's about safety. I get the discourse between "I don't have to answer that" and "You'd answer if you had nothing to hide." I am a principled / philosophical thinker at the core. I hate pragmatism, but I use it as a tool so that "perfect" doesn't become the enemy of "good" or "better".
All that to say, the law currently prohibits LEOs from gratuitously stopping legal gun owners without suspicion of another crime. Preemptively reasserting it in the law cause unnecessary friction with a group that would otherwise be very supportive. Will somebody abuse it? Probably. So then, with concrete examples, we come back and clean it up once we show the need. Sometimes you have to let story play out and we do ourselves a disservice by trying to fast forward to the end.
Chas.
We can thank former Harris County DA Chuck Rosenthal for what went on between 9/1/2005 and 9/1/2007. He hated unlicensed car-carry and he tried to kill the bill. When it passed, he guaranteed he could get Gov. Rick Perry to veto the bill. (What was he smoking!?) When that failed, he "instructed" (as if he had the authority) all LEO agencies in Harris County to ask specific questions of drivers stopped on traffic, to look for fresh groceries or the lack of luggage, as indicators that they were not traveling, so an arrest could be made. That's why I wrote HB1815 in 2007 to simply change §46.02 such that having a handgun in your car was not unlawful.nitrogen wrote:Anyone remember how many times the legislature had to define "traveling" for legal carry in your car without a chl, for cities like Houston to get it? They finally just decided to say forget it and make it completely legal, because police departments (austin and houston from what I remember) would ignore the law and make up their own interpretation.
Pretty sure thats why "The Amendment" is so important to some people. We know that, ahem, THOSE PD departments will do whatever they want if they can figure a loophole.
having said that, let's just get this passed already.
