HB 910 Conference Committee

[baseballguy2001]

I'm guessing that a LEO who sees a person with a holstered gun in public has it in his/her mind (suspects) that the person is not licensed, and thus is a criminal?

Or, maybe the LEO sees a person with a holstered gun in public and has it his/her mind (suspects) that the person HAS a license.

After all, the diligent LEO probably realizes that a criminal (or someone with criminal intent) would probably not expose the gun, for obvious reasons.

There's the concern.

The default perspective probably changes department by department, if not LEO by LEO.

Some cities are likely to antagonize open carriers to discourage the practice. I wouldn't put it past some to do a felony stop with guns drawn to intimidate legal open carriers, or to stop and demand to see the license (and call in a check to dispatch) every city block or so.

Most won't, but it's happened in other states.

For the ones that would never do this, the Amendment is insulting.

Also, I know many LEOs that are pro-2A to the core, but there's conflict when they start to think of losing flexibility in doing their job. Sometimes "suspicious" is determined using the smell test, and it doesn't write into a report very well. I can empathize with this - "it didn't seem right," "why?" "because I wasn't born yesterday." They want to keep as many avenues for stopping the suspicious person that fails the smell test as possible.

There are interesting intersections where conservative, pro-freedom, pro-America, and pro-LEO seem to have friction. I get the concerns over "militarization of police", but that is very insulting to most LEOs I know. Their perspective is that the bad guys are more organized and better funded than ever, and they are desperately trying to keep up. It's about safety. I get the discourse between "I don't have to answer that" and "You'd answer if you had nothing to hide." I am a principled / philosophical thinker at the core. I hate pragmatism, but I use it as a tool so that "perfect" doesn't become the enemy of "good" or "better".

All that to say, the law currently prohibits LEOs from gratuitously stopping legal gun owners without suspicion of another crime. Preemptively reasserting it in the law cause unnecessary friction with a group that would otherwise be very supportive. Will somebody abuse it? Probably. So then, with concrete examples, we come back and clean it up once we show the need. Sometimes you have to let story play out and we do ourselves a disservice by trying to fast forward to the end.

This is an excellent analysis. Well done.

Chas.

I agree with Mr. Cotton, excellent analysis.

I'm also surrendering. I predicted at the beginning of the session not many 2A bills would get passed, much less licensed open carry. Two years from now, armed with all the stories of open carriers being stopped for no reason other than open carrying, I predict the legislation will be changed. Today the limited government climate just doesn't exist in D.C. or Austin. Deals are made, politicians get to claim credit for legislation they crafted, and egos get inflated. Did the 2A agenda get advanced, THAT is what matters. I'm not afraid of LEO's my best friend is one. I don't go looking for trouble like those guys at OCT, or that other crowd at copwatchers -- let there be no doubt, those guys harm our agenda. On the other hand, if a uniformed govt type is wrong, I (politely) let them know. I continue to believe that limited government is the norm, not some pie in the sky, naive rainbow and flowers looney tune. BUT ... it aint over 'til it's over.

[safety1]

I must admit to being much more interested in what is going to happen then who is responsible for what has taken place so far. There will be plenty of time to worry where to place the blame when the session is over, for the present can anybody give us some idea as to what is going to happen on SB11 and HB910 and what the timeframe is likely to be.

[martytcp]

SB11 just referred to conf committee.

[safety1]

SB11 just referred to conf committee.

yep!!

[safety1]

bouncing all around on the "items eligible list"

[martytcp]

bouncing all around on the "items eligible list"

It's a moving target, pun intended.

[safety1]

bouncing all around on the "items eligible list"

It's a moving target, pun intended.

[hovercat]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

[safety1]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

It's gone! or the bill would be dead.

[jmra]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

The amendment won't do what you desire because even with the amendment OC would still be extremely rare in the areas where LEO would be inclined to stop people. Look at the states where OC is legal and it simply isn't done for the most part in city settings. Another reason OC will not become common place is that most of us realize that OC is a tactical disadvantage. I think passing OC is a good thing in theory, but believing that it is ever going to be something seen by everyone everyday on the streets of major cities is simply fantasy.

[LSUTiger]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

I agree with your assessment of OC as a way to normalize seeing guns and feel your frustration. I am whole heartedly for anything than furthers the original founding fathers idea of 2A "shall not be infringed", I think most of us on the forum are, but I am happy to "take what I can get" and then keep trying to get more as OC becomes normalized. But for it to become normalized it has to become law first in some form.

[ws03]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

Some police are abusive....however 99% are good honest people who went into law enforcement out of an interest in helping people. Lets give the 99% a chance and write the laws to fit them. Most of the 1% are already being targeted by their own departments for dismissal. I promise you nobody dislikes abusive officers more than other officers, because they are the clowns that will get you killed or land you in a 1983 suit.

[LSUTiger]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

I agree with your assessment of OC as a way to normalize seeing guns and feel your frustration.

I don't see OC as a tactical disadvantage at all rather a deterrent. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I will exercise caution in when and where I OC just to see how things will pan out but I plan to do it as often as possible. I think fundamentally you are playing the odds that most criminals are not 100% crazy and will simply choose another target, thus preventing an encounter, at least with you, which is the goal.

The tiny minuscule % of people crazy enough to attack the normal guy with the gun or police, are the people you can't do much about anyway. There is a reason police open carry, to project force and that projection of force is used as a deterrence. So OC for me and you, as a deterrent is no different than police. Yes some police get attacked, but like I said there are some that are at a level of crazy that is hard to combat no matter what you do.

I am whole heartedly for anything than furthers the original founding fathers idea of 2A "shall not be infringed", I think most of us on the forum are, but I am happy to "take what I can get" and then keep trying to get more as OC becomes normalized. But for it to become normalized it has to become law first in some form.

[safety1]

I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.

I agree with your assessment of OC as a way to normalize seeing guns and feel your frustration. I am whole heartedly for anything than furthers the original founding fathers idea of 2A "shall not be infringed", I think most of us on the forum are, but I am happy to "take what I can get" and then keep trying to get more as OC becomes normalized. But for it to become normalized it has to become law first in some form.

[Rick Harris]

If they go in order 910 is two away.