TexasCHLforum.com

v7a wrote:Herman: Why Democrats voted for Texas open carry bill

The Texas House voted 101-42 this week to allow licensed open carry of handguns. Every Republican voted for it. Every Democrat voted against it, except seven.
I looked for similarities among those seven: Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City; Abel Herrero, Robstown; Tracy King, Batesville; Oscar Longoria, Mission; Joe Moody, El Paso; Joe Pickett, El Paso; and Richard Peña Raymond, Laredo.

Five of the seven Democrats — all but the two El Pasoans — represent smaller-town/rural districts. This fits in with the notion that smaller-town/rural Texans are more comfortable around guns than many big-city folks are. A significant majority of Democrats in the House are big-city folks.

...

After the House vote, a reader asked, “Why is Texas so determined to make those of us who do not feel comfortable with people running around carrying weapons unwelcome?”

My answer: Because a large majority of Texas’ lawmakers feel the rights of some people should not be restricted by the discomfort of others.

To me, and maybe to you, open carry is kind of creepy, as are some of the more strident proponents of it (maybe the ones Moody said “probably can’t get a license”). But there’s going to be a long list if we start banning things I think are creepy. Bye-bye to vapor cigarettes, many tattoos and most body piercings.

To me, the creepiest thing about the House bill is that part that bars a cop from asking to see an open carrier’s license. Seems weird. The Senate should unweird that.

Ruark wrote:Assuming the amendment stands, what legal remedy do you have if a cop DOES stop you and demands your CHL/ID with no probable cause? I would probably cooperate just to avoid a mess, but afterwards, are there any steps that could be taken?

Ruark wrote:I can see the logic on both sides. On one hand, it would be difficult for a good cop to look the other way upon seeing a black gangbanger strutting down a Dove Springs sidewalk in baggy pants and a sideways baseball cap with a gun on his hip, compared to a middle age yuppie walking to his BMW at Nordstrom's in his Birkenstocks and Polo shirt, accompanied by his wife pushing a baby carriage.

On the other hand, yeah, that screams profiling. Some cops would be reasonable about it, while others would see it as "open season on open carriers" and harass people mercilessly. Even with this amendment, some may stretch credibility in coming up with reasons to detain: "uh, yeah, we've had some breakins lately...." "there's been some trouble in this area, so we're just checking..." just to have an excuse for an "investigatory detainment."

It'll be really interesting to see how all this pans out.

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

Hey Charles, in layman's terms, what exactly does Shaefer's 18th amendment to 910 do exactly?

I'm not Charles, but with the weather around Houston he may be preoccupied at the moment but a link to the text of the amendment is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 10H218.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essentially this amendment reduces the penalty for a 30.06 violation to a Class C and a fine of $200, unless it can be proven that the Licensee was given notice after entering the property and failed to depart after receiving notice.

Well, here is what Charles said quite a few pages back:

If you see the sign and don't leave, then it would be a Class A.

Chas.

So the amendment only applies if you don't see the sign? Keep your eyes on your phone when walking in the door, and the most you can get stuck with is a class C (if you leave when asked)? Like I said, I think I understand the intent of the amendment: Walk past sign, class C. Walk past, get told to leave and stick around = class A. Makes sense, I just don't know if what is actually written in the amendment makes that clear enough.

mojo84 wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

Wow! That was painful.

Very. Incoherent sentences a plenty in that one.

That have big hamburger right gun stuff Christmas in April all over The Grand ole opry State of Tejas right there. Nothing like plumbago pie.

G.A. Heath wrote:Here I was thinking spam bots were writing the articles, with the headlines like "Texas set to approve open up have of handguns, witnessed as get for gun-rights activists" from this article http://www.bulletinstandard.org/us/texa ... 10153.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will be hard to convince me otherwise.

K5GU wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

K5GU wrote:

jmra wrote:

stash wrote:I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor this morning re the Texas house passage of Licensed OC. Among other things, the article indicated that the legislature opted to require a special open-carry permit for which owners would have to apply. I don't recall seeing anything about a special open carry permit in SB17 or HB910 or amendments put forth on Fri. Did I miss something or what?

No. The current CHL is the only requirement. That same misinformation was in a Yahoo article. Don't know where it's coming from.

Here's the article I just saw. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/20 ... long-video" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I sent an email to that staff writer suggesting he check his sources again and print an accurate corrected article.

Hopefully you reminded him that Texas is not the "Long" Star State?

And they're long guns, not long runs! Quoting from the article, "To be sure, Texas has always allowed residents to carry long runs, like rifles and shotguns, in the open, a nod to its pioneer past and living ranch legacy."

stash wrote:I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor this morning re the Texas house passage of Licensed OC. Among other things, the article indicated that the legislature opted to require a special open-carry permit for which owners would have to apply. I don't recall seeing anything about a special open carry permit in SB17 or HB910 or amendments put forth on Fri. Did I miss something or what?

mojo84 wrote:It really would be great if they could have slipped in an amendment removing the prohibited places also.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Awesome Bill!!

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

We were typing at the same time! I edited my post because it confused me too! Unless I'm reading the amendment wrong.

I'm still not sure I'm clear. HB 910 does not allow a local exemption, that amendment was tabled. Are you saying you don't like the idea that the law allowed the amendment to be offered to begin with?

The link shows amendment 9 was adopted. Maybe I'm totally confused, I hope so. I would hate to see potentially 6.5 Million Texans lose this OC option within large cities.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 910H29.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rbwhatever1 wrote:

jmra wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.

What are you referring to?

We were typing at the same time! I edited my post because it confused me too! Unless I'm reading the amendment wrong.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Not sure I like the fact that some municipalities can preempt the State of Texas. This road should be blocked in its entirety.