ScooterSissy wrote:Texas1999 wrote:No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control.
So then why the fierce opposition from LEOs to the amendment? After all, the amendment is just reiterating the current constraints of the Fourth Amendment. In which case, the amendment should not bother LEOs at all. Yet they're acting like they NEED the amendment stripped because they NEED to randomly stop and detain OC'ers without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
I alluded to this in another thread. Some law enforcement folks see a gray area in court decisions, and specific codified law.
The opposition is three-fold, in my view. I know for a fact that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments are a slap in the face to law enforcement. It is a statement that "you cannot be trusted." Some LEOs are not trustworthy, but to paint the entire LEO community with that label is as absurd and unfair as to argue that all gun owners are dangerous sociopaths because of the acts a handfull of mass murderers. Gun owners were understandably offended when Bloomberg pointed to Sandy Hook as justification to disarm 150 million American gun owners, yet some argue that the wrongful acts of a small percentage of LEOs mean none of them can be trusted.
There is also concern that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments could jeopardize criminal cases and convictions, not for gun charges, but more serious offenses such as drug dealer cases, robbery, murder, etc. This is undoubtedly true, but the level of the risk is pure speculation. The more experienced the officer, the better his/her ability to articulate why they had a "reasonable suspicion" to interview the subject.
Some have argued that, if the Amendment does nothing more than state current constitutional law, then why oppose it unless you intend to violate the constitution? Does not the answer to that question lie in the logic we gun owners use when arguing that "no guns" signs are meaningless because criminals don't obey the law? The subject matter is different, but the logic is the same. It is already unlawful to murder someone, so the "no guns" sign is ineffective. If the constitution already prohibits the conduct that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments seek to address, why would the language found in the Dutton/Huffines Amendments be any more effective than the "no guns" signs?
I know some will outright misquote me or twist what I am saying, so let me be perfectly clear on my position vis-a-vis the Dutton/Huffines Amendments. (I'm not saying that either of the two Members quoted above would do this.) I do not oppose the language of the Dutton/Huffines Amendments being in Texas law. I vigorously oppose seeing HB910 die because of demands that such language be included.
Chas.