TexasCHLforum.com

safety1 wrote:

Srnewby wrote:Before anyone loses hope that OC will get passed, I would note that Charles has been absent from these conversations for several days and the last comment I saw from him is that OC will pass. I am hopeful that something is being worked out in the background that none of us is aware of yet. I won't give up hope until such time as Charles says OC is dead for this session.

I agree, until Charles says its dead......its still alive! I will contiune to make calls until i hear otherwise.

Open-carry is fine and even HB308 has some life left in it. Srnewby is correct, something is working so watch the horizon. Since we know the opposition reads the Forum, and that there are even moles among us, I can't say more at this point. I spent the day in Austin today.

Chas.

The Dutton/Rinaldi Amendment will not kill HB910. The Amendment may be stripped in the Senate, then it may not. There is a sound case law basis for it and it does not preclude law enforcement from making an investigatory stop if there are factors present beyond the mere possession of a firearm. The Amendment essentially states current federal case law in some but not all jurisdictions (nothing in the 5th Cir.).

It's most unfortunate that Stickland/Grisham/OCT are grossly mischaracterizing the impact of the Amendment solely to camouflage their unmitigated legislative failure this session. It is further proof that the true goal of OCT/Grisham is to make OCT/Grisham look good, not pass open-carry. They place the focus not on the message, but on the messenger.

Chas.

I know it may sound somewhat weak, but the Sheriff who testified for campus-carry in the Senate (can't recall his name) was absolutely correct when he responded to Sen. Zaffirini's question about how LEO's would know who was licensed. His response was to the effect that experienced officers can tell if someone is up to no good. While this is not true in all situations, it is in most.

Chas.

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 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.

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.

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.

v7a wrote:STAR-TELEGRAM:

Alice Tripp of the Texas State Rifle Association said that she likes the “intent” of the amendment but that the wording needs a look.

I just confirmed with Alice Tripp that she did not make this statement! Bud Kennedy made this up on his own because she wouldn't give him a statement. Edward R. Murrow he isn't.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:Both of today's amendments are huge gains in my book -definitely worth waiting an extra day for. I have to say, though, I'm surprised Amendment 3 was approved. Charles's comments yesterday on one of the amendments made me think that the House would be hostile towards an amendment like this. I'm also curious why it wasn't considered yesterday. Was it intentionally held back? Were there more absences by the opposition in the House today?

Rep. Dutton came up with this on his own. You will note that it was not even read, much less discussed. That's all I'll say for now.

Chas.

Okay, I'll say just a little more, then I'll shut up.

Rep. Stickland, OCT and CATI are strongly hinting if not outright claiming that the Dutton Amendment has "unintentionally" achieved unlicensed open-carry. There are several problems with this claim. First, Stickland had nothing to do with the Dutton Amendment; it was written by Rep. Dutton and Rep. Rinaldi. Stickland had nothing to do with it, so his claim is . . . well, everyone knows what it is.

Secondly, are OCT/CATI and Stickland encouraging people to commit a crime by carrying a handgun without a license? While they will claim otherwise, that's the only rational interpretation of the claim that the inability of law enforcement to inquire about a license allows unlicensed people to carry a handgun. This gives some very important insight into the character and mindset of the people and organizations claiming the Dutton gave us backdoor unlicensed-carry. Dutton offered it to prevent harassment, but the zealots want to use it to promote lawlessness.

Finally, when one allows their ego and self-aggrandizement to take priority over the cause, one often shoots themselves and their cause in the proverbial foot. This false claim so proudly hailed by a vocal few has energized many in law enforcement to get involved with the goal of stripping the Dutton Amendment in the Senate. In doing so, they don't have to claim a desire to engage in racial profiling; they are arguing that they want to prevent unlawful activity sanctioned by OCT and Stickland. Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant OCT/CATI/Stickland!

Now I'll shut up, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Chas.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote:But this amendment is a very big deal. If nobody ever has to worry about being stopped to show a license, that’s closer to the unlicensed-carry freedom promoted by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford.

“Where do you think they got the idea?” Stickland asked slyly Tuesday. That was after a leader of the Dallas-based Come and Take It Texas open-carry group wrote on social media: “We unintentionally just got unlicensed open carry.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

TexasCajun wrote:Most officers are just like the rest of us. So while we vehemently disagree with their bosses' brand of politics, those that are going to run out and open carry on day 1 should remember that not all departments are a reflection of their political appointee head. I believe that most officers will only go as far as they have to in order to keep their bosses off their backs. Until proven otherwise, we should continue to treat the rank-and-file offers as the good guys.

Chas.

TrueFlog wrote:Both of today's amendments are huge gains in my book -definitely worth waiting an extra day for. I have to say, though, I'm surprised Amendment 3 was approved. Charles's comments yesterday on one of the amendments made me think that the House would be hostile towards an amendment like this. I'm also curious why it wasn't considered yesterday. Was it intentionally held back? Were there more absences by the opposition in the House today?

Rep. Dutton came up with this on his own. You will note that it was not even read, much less discussed. That's all I'll say for now.

Chas.

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?

Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?

Absolutely!

Chas.

and if it did would that open up killing the Bill in a state supreme court?

Probably not since the local opt-out provision could be separated from the rest of the law. Local opt-out provisions were DOA from the beginning and that was nothing more than grandstanding for voters in their districts.

Chas.

bigity wrote:I'm not sure it was related, I think a runner was just bringing something over?

It was not relevant. That's how they announce passage of the other body's bills.

Chas.

Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?

Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?

Absolutely!

Chas.

The amendment is a good one; it's worth the wait. There may be more bad ones, but they won't be adopted.

Chas.

TBJK wrote:Am I the only one bothered by admendment 12? Not that I intend on carrying extra mags but would like the option too without it being criminalized.

That amendment was tabled; it's not in HB910. Only one amendment was attached and it was a very good one, i.e. Shaefer's 18.

Chas.