TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip, I have a CHL and am Open Carrying, and just walking, minding my own business. Can a cop come up and ask for my license? Would I legally have to give it to him? Can I tell him no, that I have a CHL but don't wish to give it to him, that it's included in the 4th amendment? I know that the penal code says that I must produce my license if I am concealed carrying, just wondering how all this would go with OC.
Thanks.

No, he cannot. It's already settled by SCOTUS. he has to be able to articulate a reason.......which is not that hard......but it has to be plausible.

I'm not that confident. If they KNEW they couldn't do it anyway, why were they so hysterically opposed to the amendment?

locke_n_load wrote:So, I have a question now that it looks like we may get OC without the Huffines/Dutton.
I am walking down the street, pistol in a holster on my hip, I have a CHL and am Open Carrying, and just walking, minding my own business. Can a cop come up and ask for my license? Would I legally have to give it to him? Can I tell him no, that I have a CHL but don't wish to give it to him, that it's included in the 4th amendment? I know that the penal code says that I must produce my license if I am concealed carrying, just wondering how all this would go with OC.
Thanks.

juno106 wrote:...or

Huffman could have left in the Dutton amendment, there would have been no need for the Huffines amendment, and HB910 would have gone straight to the Gov instead of House concurrence.

Hate seeing Huffines being blamed for Huffman's blunder...

Yeas — Allen; Alonzo; Anderson, C.; Anderson, R.; Ashby; Aycock; Bell; Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Burns; Burrows; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Clardy; Coleman; Cook; Craddick; Crownover; Cyrier; Dale; Darby; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Dutton; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Flynn; Frank; Frullo; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; Guerra; Guillen; Harless; Herrero; Howard; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Israel; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, K.; King, P.; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Koop; Krause; Kuempel; Landgraf; Larson; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Lucio; Marquez; Martinez; McClendon; Metcalf; Meyer; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Morrison; Mun˜oz; Murphy; Murr; Naishtat; Nevarez; Oliveira; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Paul; Pen˜a; Phelan; Phillips; Pickett; Raney; Raymond; Reynolds; Riddle; Rinaldi; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.;
Romero; Rose; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Sheets; Sheffield; Simmons; Simpson; Smith; Smithee; Spitzer; Springer; Stephenson; Stickland; Thompson, E.; Thompson, S.; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; White, J.; White, M.; Workman; Wray; Zedler; Zerwas.

Nays — Alvarado; Anchia; Collier; Gonza´lez; Gutierrez; Hernandez;
Johnson; Moody; Turner, C.; Wu.
Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).
Absent, Excused — Miles; Price.
Absent — Dukes; Farias; Martinez Fischer.

STATEMENTS OF VOTE
When Record No. 295 was taken, I was shown voting no. I intended to vote
yes.
Collier

When Record No. 295 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote
no.
Nevarez

When Record No. 295 was taken, I was shown voting yes. I intended to vote
no.
J. Rodriguez

Legislative Session: 84(R) Unofficial
Bill: HB 910
Disclaimer:This vote has not been certified by the House Journal Clerk. It is provided for informational purposes only. Once the vote is certified, it will be recorded in the journal according to Rule 5 of the House Rules and made available on this web site.
RV# 1585 — Unofficial Totals: 63 Yeas, 79 Nays, 2 Present, not voting


Yeas - Anderson, R.; Bell; Burns; Burrows; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Clardy; Craddick; Cyrier; Darby; Dutton; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Flynn; Frullo; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Krause; Landgraf; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Martinez; Metcalf; Murr; Oliveira; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Paul; Phelan; Phillips; Raney; Raymond; Rinaldi; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Simmons; Simpson; Spitzer; Springer; Stickland; Thompson, S.; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; White, J.; White, M.; Wray; Zedler

Nays - Allen; Alonzo; Alvarado; Anchia; Anderson, C.; Ashby; Aycock; Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Coleman; Collier; Cook; Dale; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Farias; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Frank; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; González; Guerra; Gutierrez; Harless; Hernandez; Herrero; Howard; Israel; Johnson; King, K.; King, P.; Koop; Larson; Márquez; Martinez Fischer; Meyer; Miles; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Minjarez; Moody; Morrison; Muñoz; Murphy; Naishtat; Nevárez; Peña; Pickett; Price; Reynolds; Riddle; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.; Romero; Rose; Sheets; Sheffield; Smith; Smithee; Stephenson; Thompson, E.; Turner, C.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; Wu; Zerwas

Present, not voting - Kuempel(C); Mr. Speaker

Absent, Excused - Lucio; Workman

Absent - Crownover; Dukes; Guillen; McClendon

Disclaimer:This vote has not been certified by the House Journal Clerk. It is provided for informational purposes only. Once the vote is certified, it will be recorded in the journal according to Rule 5 of the House Rules and made available on this web site.

Stripes Dude wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:Will HB910 pass?

http://www.ask8ball.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I got 2 most likely's, 1 ask again later and 1 outlook good.

That is significantly more credible than any source I've seen yet!!!

Callaway wrote:Not sure if credible...

Chuck Lindell ‏@chucklindell 2m2 minutes ago
Sen. @DonHuffines says he is disappointed his police-stop amendment got cut but, "I'm going to go along with the will of the body." #txlege

jerry_r60 wrote:

ATX117 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The vote to send it to conference committee was overwhelming.... 70 something against to 90 something in favor. It is hard to see how a 20+ vote difference would suddenly swing the other way and vote to pass it in the event that the committee reports the bill back to the floor unchanged. That is a political fiction existing only in the fairyland imaginations of the most fringe OC supporters.

THAT is why the Huffhines amendment was a poison pill. If the Senate had voted to pass the bill as is, without creating a scenario where their final bill conflicted with the House's final bill, HB 910 would have been signed into law yesterday. Instead, and as I understand it, the conference committee now faces these possibilities in order to iron out the differences:

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

Please God, WHEN are the OCT apologists going to admit that they got taken downtown and spanked by reality? HERE is the reality:

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.

To you guys who think Huffines is a principled genius, it's NOT just that we might not get OC (it doesn't look good), but we also didn't get a lot of other equally important things because, as the debates dragged on and on over OC, either time ran out, or the political capital necessary ran out, before those other things could be accomplished. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF Huffines had not butted in and screwed it all up, we would have at least had OC, even if we didn't get the other things. BUT..... BECAUSE Huffines butted in, the only possibility we have of salvaging anything this session is if those 20+ votes in the House who would not vote to pass the amended bill will change their minds and vote in favor, as is. I like a snowball's chance in hades as better odds.

Thank you for cutting off all of our noses to spite your face.

With all due respect, the bill came from the House with the same amendment from Dutton. The Senate striped it out in committee and Hoffines amended it back in. Personally I place the blame on non-concurrence on the back of the Republicans that voted for the bill in the House then changed their minds when the same bill (for all practical purposes) came back from the Senate. I suspect that pressure from police organizations has made them afraid to support it. Phillips has said that he feels confident that it the HB910 comes back to the House as is that it will pass.

He did not put it back in. He put back his version, with some very minor changes. Those minor changes were all it took to invoke a different path for the bill. The changes made it not EXACTLY equal to what came over from the house.

1. The first possibility is that the committee would vote to send the bill back out, unchanged, for an up or down vote in the House. IF THAT HAPPENS, there are only two possible outcomes:
   
   1. Least likely outcome of that: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, change their minds and they vote to pass the bill as is.
   2. Most likely outcome: the 20+ vote margin in the House that originally voted against the bill in its current form, all stand firm on their conviction that the Huffines Amendment makes bad law, and they refuse to pass it......for the same reasons they refused to pass it before.
2. The second possibility is that the conference committee would recommend changes to the bill and refer it back out. If they make changes, the following things have be be resolved before June 1st..........and let me remind all those who kept touting how smart Huffines was, today is May 28th and it is nearly 2pm as I write this..... so for all practical purposes, June 1st is only 3 days away. That means that there are 3 days to get this thing done, IF THE LEGISLATURE TACKLES NO OTHER BUSINESS (and it is not the case that there is no other business to tackle):
   
   • The Bill has to go back to the Senate, where it absolutely WILL be filibustered, killing any hope of passing OC in this session. THANK YOU Senator Huffines, for your unswerving and badly articulated defense of principle, even if it means killing a good bill.
     
     AND
   • The Bill has to go back to the House, were time will run out before they can reconcile ANYTHING with a filibustered Senate. And again.... THANK YOU Senator Huffines for your brand of political genius.

1. HB 910, sans Huffine's meddling, was not a perfect bill, but it was a good bill. Without Huffine's meddling, we would have had OC signed into law today. Period. That is a given fact.
2. There is historical precedence for this. When CHL first passed, it was not perfect either, and it has been amended and tweaked several times over the years to make it better. What examples? Here:
   
   • Amended to add 30.06.
   • Amended to remove penalties for failure to disclose CHL to LEO.
   • Amended to change wording for unintentional failure to conceal.
   • Amended to remove the requirement for the licensee to take a CHL renewal class.
   • Amended to reduce license fees for veterans and LEOs.
   • Amended to add employee parking lot protections.
   • There are more that I won't bother to list here, EXCEPT to say that:
   • It MIGHT have been amended to allow OC this year, if Huffines hadn't opened his pie hole.
   • We MIGHT have gotten Campus Carry passed if OC had not sucked up all the oxygen in the room.
   • We MIGHT have gotten an expanded list of places where we can carry, but OC burned up all the time and political capital.
     
     Etc., etc., etc.