TexasCHLforum.com

Fantastic!

When is the signing taking place and the party thereafter?

Is there opposition to removing that amendment?

oohrah wrote:Birdwell (the author) is not willing to give on private university opt out. If he does not prevail, it most likely dies.

I am confused by your statement. Birdwell wants to keep or toss the amendment?

jmra wrote:

pdxmale wrote:here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Isn't this the difference in wording between the Dutton amendment and the Huffines amendment?

No. The dutton amendment was as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

Edit:oops I misread the question.

TVGuy wrote:

pdxmale wrote:here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person's possession of a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun. [FA9]

Where did you get this information? Please cite it.

I think this is misinformation. Nothing against the OP. It just sounds to weird to be right.

If there's wisdom in this action, I'm struggling hard to find it.

v7a wrote:

casp625 wrote:One of the Inquiries that was asked... stated that if the conference committee can not come to an agreement, can the House go back to an up/down vote on HB910 with the amendment intact and the answer was yes. I believe a few representatives wanted to try conference first but would vote yes if they could not agree in conference. Whether or not there was enough support is another question.

Yes, but the more likely scenario is that the conference committee will come to an agreement. The vote on that agreement will then be filibustered by Senate Democrats (at which point the House can't just go back in time and re-vote on concurrence).

Correct, this is text book on how-to and where-to send a bill to die. Open Carry, Campus Carry and all meaningful 2a legislation is already dead for this session. The problem is we just don't know it yet.

StrangeBulge wrote:Find your representative if listed under "nays-" you know what to do.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... 05/27/2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might make everyone feel good to besiege these people with phone calls, nasty email or worse. Before you do, remember we still need their votes later on. Even though most if not all might be GOP, at this time I'd consider each one to be a swing vote. They feel neither obligation or fear if HB910 fails. Why, because it is the safest position to take right now. If you want anything to pass this session, I'd suggest moderation at this point.

While it may make some feel better to blame OCT, some republicans or an amendment, the truth is the opposition ran a better game and out played us. They brought a better message than we did it is as simple as that. The upper and lower houses appear to speak different languages and with that weren't unified in their approach. The GOP should have closed ranks and protected open carry and ALL 2a legislation. But they didn't do that. Add to that a very assertive and tactically well played game plan and you can spell defeat. Or victory, depending on which side you're on. Who knew the amendment was poison? Everyone! Everyone but the republican side of the legislature. After all, it was added once, no twice. Talk about a double smack of stupid! The anti 2a crowd has to be laughing their collective off right now because resistance is futile. We started with a majority, rules in our favor and mandate and still lost. What an embarrassing mess.

If I can read between the lines and understand what Charles is saying, actually rather bluntly, it is that since the Senate failed to passed HB 910 as it was, that the House has now had the time to reflect and may not vote to concur on the Senate's version, which is for all practical purposes identical to the House version and HB 910, open carry will die. Furthermore, at the root of all this contention is the ability of police to profile an individual and make an investigatory or temporary detention as to ascertain whether or not an individual does in fact possess a CHL. I am not for or against profiling other than to say that it is a necessary part of policing and an area that the sometimes police are guilty of misusing. I don't know how to feel that as of now I may have to to accept defeat of HB 910 solely based on an amendment that is arguably redundant already and one that most of law enforcement is misrepresenting in order to meet their goal of defeating open carry. I do know this if HB 910 passes into law, law enforcement will have no issue finding probable cause when and should they need to make a stop. Should OC fail this session I won't be a happy voter because I'd expect my elected law makers to understand this already and that if there is a side that they need to err on it is NOT that of law enforcement, but rather those that they are elected to serve. I am sorry if this offends or is philosophical as it is not meant to be. Perhaps we should stop dancing around the real issue surround this bill and ask why?

Not to bust any bubbles, but if he has a recognized out of state permit, he could. Right?[/quote]
If he does, then yes he can carry. However, he expressly stated on a Guns Over Texas radio program that if licensed open-carry passes, he will have to continue to carry a rifle since he won't be able to carry a handgun. He made that statement as a call-in listener when I was a guest on the show.

Chas.[/quote]

I've seen pictures of him at events and he appears to be concealing a firearm like item on his left hip.

[quote="wrinkles"]Forgive me for my ignorance but where exactly do these bills stand a the moment? What's the next step?[/quote]

HB910 has been favorably voted out of committee and is headed for the Senate for a vote. The timing for this hasn't been announced yet.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can create an account here and set your own alerts via email.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/MnuMyTLO.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;