TexasCHLforum.com

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

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote: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.

joelamosobadiah wrote:

TrueFlog wrote: 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.

It's sad, but I could totally see Austin setting this up at "key public safety" locations and events.

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

It's kind of crazy, folks that usually get elected have to have tremendous egos. Those same egos can get in the way of doing the right thing. Can be pretty frustrating.

Ramsey's comments in that article were "all over the place". I did not get what his point was, other than politicians can agree or disagree with each other. Regarding the open carry bills, except for some floor amendments, HB 910 and SB 17 are just about identical. I doubt when HB 910 hits the Senate floor that it will receive many more new amendments and if it does, the bill will go to Conference, just like the original SB 60 CHL bill did in 1995.

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

gdanaher wrote:Help me out here. Maybe I am overlooking something, or y'all have overlooked something. So the proposed law says an officer can't inquire of the citizen if he is license to open carry. This might not be a problem. The officer sees a guy meandering down the street and he surmises that the citizen is intoxicated. He is still allowed to ask for identification. Not the chl license perhaps, but the drivers license. He calls dispatch, passes on the subject's name, dob, etc., and the dispatcher reports back the information on the screen, which includes chl license information, right? If no license, and the subject has a 1911 on his hip, then we have a felony, don't we? Nobody had to ask the guy to present the chl. The police should already know based on the other ID.

That’s right. Under House Bill 910, police are barred from asking anyone “whether a person possesses a handgun license.”

Maybe even regardless of age.

Look, passing open carry wasn’t supposed to be a big deal. The idea was just to let nearly 1 million Texans with concealed-handgun licenses choose where they holster a gun.

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;

v7a wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

Yes, it benefits everyone. But Dutton's concern was specifically racial profiling (so the title of the newspaper article in question was in fact correct).

TexasCajun wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Who was the representative that that asked Rep. Phillips at the end of the day of the second reading if he would help fix the open carry law IF in a couple years the data suggested that it was a mistake and blood started running in the streets (my words here)? I believe he was the last one to address Phillips from the back microphone.

I really want to ask him if open carry proves to be a positive and blood does not run in the streets as he and some others want us to believe will happen, if he will help Phillips and the other pro gun rights folks to remove additional gun restrictions.

That would be Rep Dutton(sp?) that introduced the amendment that would prohibit LEOs from stopping someone just for open carrying.

v7a wrote:

The Wall wrote:That title makes it sound like that was the only reason for the amendment.

It was, according to Dutton (the amendment's author):

Amendment once again raises specter of ‘constitutional carry’ in Legislature’s open carry debate

Some have suggested that the amendment could, in effect, allow for the unlicensed open carry of handguns. That’s because someone open carrying without a license – illegally – wouldn’t need to fear police questioning if they were otherwise doing no wrong.

Dutton said on Tuesday that his intent had nothing to do with unlicensed open carry – but instead with safeguarding against racial profiling.

“If you see black guys with open carry, I didn’t want them stopped because they happened to be black guys exercising their right to open carry,” said Dutton, who voted against the overall open carry bill. “That was my concern.”

v7a wrote:Tell us how you really feel, Austin PD Chief Acevedo:

Open Season For Armed Criminals and Extremists

Yesterday's amendment to Texas' Open Carry Legislation is beyond belief and Aiken to open season for gang members, drug cartels, outlaw motor cycle gangs and any other criminal or extremist to defy the law with impunity, just brilliannt! If criminals, drug cartels, and extremists had a seat at the policy writing table they couldn't have come up with s better Amendment.

By prohibiting law enforcement from stopping or detaining to check for CHL, Texas is authorizing within our state lines any and all criminals to carry a firearm. My heart goes out to domestic violence victims and the victims of violent crimes in our State. Through this amendment we are facilitating the victimization of the people we are sworn to serve, protect and lead.

Here is a scenario, next time groups face off in our Capital City at the Capitol, Klan with their hoods on, Panthers with their faces covered, ISIS sympathizers with their faces covered and just about any other extremist group, armed with firearms authorized by Open-Carry, law enforcement will have absolutely no authority to ensure the people who are armed as they wish..........why bother common sense has officially died and writing any further would be fruitless.