TexasCHLforum.com

locke_n_load wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: I think some cops in Texas, after the addition and removal of the Duffines/Hutton amendment, are going to demand ID, and it would be nice if the Texas AG weighed in. Sounds like I need to submit a request for an opinion.

You can't submit a request for opinion.

From:
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... ns/#whocan
Who Can Request an Attorney General Opinion?

Sections 402.042 and 402.043 of the Government Code list the officials who are authorized to request formal attorney general opinions on questions of law. The attorney general is prohibited by statute from giving a written opinion to anyone other than an authorized requestor. Authorized requestors are:

the governor
the head of a department of state government
the head or board of a penal institution
the head or board of an eleemosynary institution
the head of a state board
a regent or trustee of a state educational institution
a committee of a house of the Texas Legislature
a county auditor authorized by law
the chairman of the governing board of a river authority
a district or county attorney
A person other than an authorized requestor who would like to request an attorney general opinion may ask an authorized requestor to submit the question to the attorney general. The authorized requestor has the discretion to decide whether to ask for an attorney general opinion in any given instance.

locke_n_load wrote:

dhoobler wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:Is there no opinion requested for police demanding ID for Open Carriers without any other suspicion/cause?

No. That question relates to HB 910, not SB 11.

There was an amendment added to HB 910 that would have prohibited police officers from asking for ID of someone who was openly carrying a handgun. It had support from democrats, who feared profiling, and from libertarians. It was removed from HB 910 prior to passage because of push-back from law enforcement.

I know it relates to OC, but I thought someone here who has read through the requests might know.
I am also aware of the Dutton amendment, but the legislature said it was not needed because the 4th amendment gave that protection. I thought someone may have asked for clarification by the AG if police could ask for a license with no other suspicion other than an openly carried handgun.

There is no request for opinion addressing when/where a police officer can detain someone who is openly carrying a firearm. The US Supreme Court set the threshold very low in the 1968 case, Terry vs. Ohio for when a police officer to detain someone. The outcome of the case is called a "Terry stop".

Here is a YouTube video by an attorney explaining the case.

locke_n_load wrote:Is there no opinion requested for police demanding ID for Open Carriers without any other suspicion/cause?

No. That question relates to HB 910, not SB 11.

There was an amendment added to HB 910 that would have prohibited police officers from asking for ID of someone who was openly carrying a handgun. It had support from democrats, who feared profiling, and from libertarians. It was removed from HB 910 prior to passage because of push-back from law enforcement.

locke_n_load wrote: how does one look for and find these opinions? I could not find this opinion by searching the AG site at all, only by news articles.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... o-opinions

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... kp0051.pdf

SUMMARY
A court would likely conclude that a public institution of higher education exceeds the authority granted under Senate Bill 11 if it prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns in a substantial number of classrooms or delegates to individual professors the decision as to whether possession of a concealed handgun is allowed in the individual professor's classroom.

If a public institution of higher education placed a prohibition on handguns in the institution's campus residential facilities, it would effectively prohibit license holders in those facilities from carrying concealed handguns on campus, in violation of the express terms of Senate Bill 11.

A court could conclude that occasional, reasonable, temporary restrictions that are prominently posted on the institution's website clearly notify license holders and do not amount to a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed handguns on campus.

An individual whose legal rights have been infringed due to a president or chief executive officer of a public institution adopting regulations that exceed the authority granted in Senate Bill 11 would likely have standing to bring an ultra vires cause of action against the president or chief executive officer.

If a court concludes that the rules established by an institution of higher education with regard to where concealed handguns may be carried are not authorized by statute, it would follow that any further enforcement of such provisions would be ultra vires.