TexasCHLforum.com

Looks like this is a moot question related to HB 910 now based on the latest news I'm seeing, but I still have the question.

And sorry, this may be a little rambling, but age tends to do that to me sometimes. So please forgive my wanderings, but I am trying to get to a point.

And also, I may be wrong in some of my presuppositions, but feel free to correct me if that's the case also.

Whether open carry in Texas passes this session or not, observing the process (what little I could) has been both exciting and educational. I've learned something about the workings of the legislature and a little bit about the "politics" of it all.

But now I have a question on a different, but very related, subject. There was a lot of discussion and debate regarding the Huffines amendment, which basically added a prohibition against the police being able to stop a person based only on that person openly carrying a handgun. It was interesting to hear all the opinions and the sometimes heated debate of those who were for or against the amendment.

I suppose my question is aimed mostly at any LEOs who may be forum members here, or anyone else who may have been opposed to that amendment. Simply: why would you oppose that amendment?

I'm honestly not looking to start any kind of cop bashing thread. I'm just looking for an explanation of what is wrong with that amendment, and what is wrong stated in more detail than what I've heard. Really, the only things I've heard is several police chiefs and certain others say that it would make the officers' job "more dangerous" or it would hinder "public safety."

Theoretically a LEO already has to have a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal activity even for a simple Terry stop. So what's wrong with a statement in the law that says simply that doing this legal activity (openly carrying a holstered handgun) will not be considered suspicious activity?

From the amendment proponents' side, I've heard a comparison to the fact that a LEO cannot randomly pull over a driver just to check to see if they have a valid driver's license, with no other reason. Some people say that is an invalid comparison. I personally think it's not. But here's another comparison that you might consider.

Remember the days (not so long ago) that LEOs did quite routinely pull over certain people because the LEO said to himself: "that person does not look like they should be driving around in this neighborhood." After many court cases, some Federal oversight of some police departments, and much officer retraining, we've finally learned that it is unacceptable to stop a person just for looking like they don't belong in a certain neighborhood.

So how about we take the old "looks like they shouldn't be driving around in this neighborhood" and replace it with the new "looks like they shouldn't be walking around with a gun in this neighborhood." If the old statement has basically been deemed illegal (or at least improper), I don't see why the new statement would also not be deemed illegal (or improper).

So again, if we agree that it would be improper to stop someone based solely on them doing something that is legal for certain persons to do, then what is the objection to simply adding a statement to the law that basically simply says "this is a legal activity?"