TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

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.

Yeah, I'm not going to worry about this particular bill unless Charles tells me to worry. However, I was speaking in more general terms about their egos.

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.

Ruark wrote:

K5GU wrote: Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene? Public is "alarmed", etc.?

This approach came up on a YouTube video where a guy was carrying his AR around his neighborhood and half a dozen people called the police about a MWAG. They came to the house and of course he started jabbering about the 2nd Amendment. The LEO said the focus wasn't on the 2nd, it was on people being alarmed. Seems like the same logic could be applied to OC under certain circumstances. For example:

It is perfectly legal to carry a baseball bat. It is perfectly legal to walk around in a Speedo. It is perfectly legal to wear scuba flippers.

Now, suppose you walked through an upscale mall in a Speedo and scuba flippers, carrying a baseball bat? Nobody can make a peep, right? You're not doing anything illegal. But of course, it wouldn't work like that. Somebody would call the police, and you'd be hauled off for something like creating a public disturbance, or some similar charge. Or, at the very least, you'd be made to leave the premises, not because of what you were doing, but because of the public alarm you created.

Could the same apply to open carry?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

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 guess where I'm confused is the amendment applies to the law "under the authority of 411 H, and doesn't amend 46.02
Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene?

It is confusing as to its location in the Gov't Code rather than the Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure. Even though the language would appear in Subchapter H of Chp. 411, it is not limited to CHLs. You are correct that it does not modify Tex. Penal Code §46.02, but it does state that merely carrying a handgun does not constitute probable cause to investigate.

Chas.

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 probable cause 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 probable cause 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 probable cause 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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Salty1 wrote:If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

It will be beneficial to all Texas gun owners if Salty1's advice is taken to heart. This is how we make open-carry as successful has concealed-carry has been for 20 years.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

I got a malicious page warning from AVAST. Just FYI.

Definitely painfully bad editing.

mojo84 wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

Wow! That was painful.

Very. Incoherent sentences a plenty in that one.

That have big hamburger right gun stuff Christmas in April all over The Grand ole opry State of Tejas right there. Nothing like plumbago pie.

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

Wow! That was painful.

Very. Incoherent sentences a plenty in that one.

K5GU wrote:

gregsauls wrote:I heard from a couple sources that what the non-germane amendment that Stickland was trying to get introduced Friday was to remove fees for a Texas CHL, ie free CHL. In a way it would get even closer to the constitutional carry/no-infringement goal the OC gang has desires on seeing or more likely torpedo CHL-Open carry for this session. He would also have record to run on to show who voted against "his" version/amendment that denied Texas OC.

If this is true, I can see why the whole Stickland side show needed to go down in flames with regards to HB-910. Weird if true.

If I read Stickland's commentary in the House Journal correctly, it seems his amendment would have allowed open carry with or without a CHL. If true, I don't see how it could be germane. Germaneness notwithstanding, he wasted a lot of time and written space in the journal on an amendment that would've been tabled anyway.

jmra wrote:

K5GU wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

K5GU wrote:

jmra wrote:

stash wrote:I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor this morning re the Texas house passage of Licensed OC. Among other things, the article indicated that the legislature opted to require a special open-carry permit for which owners would have to apply. I don't recall seeing anything about a special open carry permit in SB17 or HB910 or amendments put forth on Fri. Did I miss something or what?

No. The current CHL is the only requirement. That same misinformation was in a Yahoo article. Don't know where it's coming from.

Here's the article I just saw. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... long-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I sent an email to that staff writer suggesting he check his sources again and print an accurate corrected article.

Hopefully you reminded him that Texas is not the "Long" Star State?

And they're long guns, not long runs! Quoting from the article, "To be sure, Texas has always allowed residents to carry long runs, like rifles and shotguns, in the open, a nod to its pioneer past and living ranch legacy."

Remember when someone's sole job was proof reading/editing articles before they were published? Some of the stuff that passes for news these days is almost impossible to read.

RoyGBiv wrote:

K5GU wrote:

jmra wrote:

stash wrote:I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor this morning re the Texas house passage of Licensed OC. Among other things, the article indicated that the legislature opted to require a special open-carry permit for which owners would have to apply. I don't recall seeing anything about a special open carry permit in SB17 or HB910 or amendments put forth on Fri. Did I miss something or what?

No. The current CHL is the only requirement. That same misinformation was in a Yahoo article. Don't know where it's coming from.

Here's the article I just saw. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... long-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I sent an email to that staff writer suggesting he check his sources again and print an accurate corrected article.

Hopefully you reminded him that Texas is not the "Long" Star State?