TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote: Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

If HB910 passes with the Dutton amendment intact, then it would constitute a statutory provision that merely wearing a handgun is not reasonable suspicion to stop and interview or detain a person. A LEO would have to have something else. Candidly, it won't take a lot more, but carrying a gun alone will not be sufficient.

The Star-Telegram article commented that the amendment would possibly allow a child to carry a handgun. While the statement was absurd, it does provide a good example of the "something more" that would provide reasonable suspicion to interview a person. Since one must be 21 years old to get a CHL (absent the military exception), if a 14 year old kid is wearing a handgun, then the officer would have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime was being committed, i.e. UCW. Thus, the officer could interview the subject. PLEASE, don't talk about people who look young for their age. If they look that young, then they should be flattered that the officer would want to see their CHL.

Chas.

I can envision lots of MWAG calls, including ones manufactured just for the circumstance.

Wes wrote: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.

v7a wrote:

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

That thought struck me earlier too. His rant is proof of why the amendment was needed. Austin PD was apparently planning on stopping and questioning anyone open carrying in Austin.

My comment to him about applying the same "logic" to operators of motor vehicles and just stopping all of them to see if they are licensed because the KKK, Panthers, etc, etc, might be driving around our community and endangering us, was deleted.

He wants to not be interrupted, and then he interrupts.

Why are our legislators allowed to stand there repeating these lies to each other? POO!!!