SB11 & HB910 This week....

[Overthehill]

Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

[CoffeeNut]

I sent a nicer email to my Rep who voted no for concurrence even though they voted yes on the original bill with similar language.

I saw that you voted "no" for concurrence with the Senate amendment even though you voted in favor of the original House bill which had similar language.

This amendment to the bill should not kill the bill due to the fact that the amendment is simply reiterating what is already law. As it is now a police officer cannot demand ID from a person who is doing nothing wrong. This amendment was more to quash concerns of citizens who, rightfully, fear an aggressive police response to lawful open carry. If you do not believe me I would kindly direct you to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo's comments before the Legislature.

While I understand the concerns of law enforcement weigh heavily on the legislature I would appreciate if feelings are left out of lawmaking and the facts of open carry are relied upon instead. I ask that you do everything in your power to keep this bill alive, and even if the conference committee cannot work out the differences I ask that you vote for concurrence on HB910 even with the Dutton/Huffines amendment.

Thank you for your time and your continuted support of Second Amendment rights.

Sincerely,

[baldeagle]

Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

You answered your own question. "to kill open carry"

[FormerTSgt]

Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

You answered your own question. "to kill open carry"

Exactly.

[Jasonw560]

Sen. Whitmire, in his dressing down of Sen. Huffines, mentioned that Philedelphia had different laws regarding open carry than the rest of PA. What he (naturally) forgot to mention is the higher crime rate: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/pa/philadelphia/crime/

It's things like this that our side needs to be more versed on, and call out the other side for getting out ALL the facts.

[Robert91RS]

Sen. Whitmire, in his dressing down of Sen. Huffines, mentioned that Philedelphia had different laws regarding open carry than the rest of PA. What he (naturally) forgot to mention is the higher crime rate: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/pa/philadelphia/crime/

It's things like this that our side needs to be more versed on, and call out the other side for getting out ALL the facts.

The lack of intelligent & factual response was certainly one of the most frustrating parts of watching the debates. The folks opposed to the bill made some of the most ridiculous and outright false assertions and the best response most of our reps could muster was, "no, that's not what this bill says". NOBODY truly believed these amendments made open carriers unapproachable, but the dems won't stop saying it.

When do we learn more? The house conferees have been appointed, are we waiting on senate conferees or just a free room to meet in?

[Callaway]

Texas GOP ‏@TexasGOP 26m26 minutes ago
#txlege Republicans are close to increasing border security funding, passing historic tax cuts and expanding #2A rights!

Slap in the face or poorly scheduled tweet.

[ScooterSissy]

On the off chance that campus carry does pass and a school does make any of their buildings off limits, how will anyone know a particular building is off limits? Will they have to also post 30.06 sign(s)?

That's what was discussed. They would have to post.

[NotRPB]

Texas GOP ‏@TexasGOP 26m26 minutes ago
#txlege Republicans are close to increasing border security funding, passing historic tax cuts and expanding #2A rights!

Slap in the face or poorly scheduled tweet.

I like the term restoring rights rather than expanding rights ... just more historically accurate from the proper world view/perspective/mindset

[ScooterSissy]

Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

Federal law isn't explicit, but a district court ruled that it's prohibited. My best guess is that some in LE would prefer it still be a somewhat gray area open to interpretation (and other rulings), rather than codified in Texas law.

I wish those supporting that type of stop and search would say it outright - that a policeman observing someone can simply on a hunch, stop and ask them for their papers. Supporters won't say that, for obvious reason; so instead they cloak it in "police need to be able to do their jobs".

Apparently, some lawmakers (and law officers) have a different interpretation than I of what that job is.

[Robert91RS]

Senate has just appointed conferees to the 910 committee

And SB 11 has been sent to committee too

[JollyHappyDad]

Where do I find the list of committee members?

EDIT: Check that, I found it.

[mr1337]

Where do I find the list of committee members?

EDIT: Check that, I found it.

For anyone else interested:

HB910

House Conferees: Appointed (05/27/2015) Phillips (Chair) | Burns | Geren | King, Phil | Nevárez
Senate Conferees: Appointed (05/28/2015) Estes (Chair) | Eltife | Huffines | Huffman | Uresti


SB11

Senate Conferees: Appointed (05/28/2015) Birdwell (Chair) | Burton | Hinojosa | Huffman | Schwertner


From the legis webiste

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Stripes Dude]

Anyone know when the committees are meeting?

[safety1]

Anyone know when the committees are meeting?

Better be today..........