Return to “HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading”
This^mojo84 wrote:If they live there now, they are locals. It is what it is.Ruark wrote:Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.mojo84 wrote:Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.
It's sad, but I could totally see Austin setting this up at "key public safety" locations and events.TrueFlog wrote: The reason the justices have allowed that is that it's at a checkpoint where everyone is being stopped. That ensures it's not profiling. The courts have been clear that stopping motorists at random is not permissible. So an Open Carry/CHL checkpoint might fly, but not stopping individuals at random.
If the officer surmises the citizen is intoxicated while carrying, he now has probably cause for a crime. Making the scenario a moot point.gdanaher wrote:Help me out here. Maybe I am overlooking something, or y'all have overlooked something. So the proposed law says an officer can't inquire of the citizen if he is license to open carry. This might not be a problem. The officer sees a guy meandering down the street and he surmises that the citizen is intoxicated. He is still allowed to ask for identification. Not the chl license perhaps, but the drivers license. He calls dispatch, passes on the subject's name, dob, etc., and the dispatcher reports back the information on the screen, which includes chl license information, right? If no license, and the subject has a 1911 on his hip, then we have a felony, don't we? Nobody had to ask the guy to present the chl. The police should already know based on the other ID.