SB11 & HB910 This week....

[flintknapper]

Open carry had the Huffines amendment removed in conference committee, now will head back to both houses for votes possibly as soon as Friday.

^^^^^^^^^ Shame too...IMO it was a good amendment. Yes...I know some will argue 'not necessary', or redundant, but the plain fact that LEO (not necessarily the rank and file) are so vehemently opposed to it...tells me right up front, it was needed.

IF O/C fails, they will need to accept a healthy part of the blame. If it passes...it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that the amendment was stripped.

IF the amendment was somehow perceived as 'insulting' to LEO then a lot of LEO need to grow up. They must also find the 4th amendment 'insulting'. The 4th was NOT written for the benefit of the police, but for the people.

I support LEO as much as anyone, but I fail to see how this would have been a problem for them.

Flint.

[RoyGBiv]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/sena ... ill/nmQW7/

"Meantime, a House-Senate conference committee made short work of House Bill 910, which allows those with a concealed handgun license to openly carry a firearm in a shoulder or belt holster.

The bill will return to both houses with a major sticking point removed — an amendment, added by Sen. Don Huffines, R-Dallas, that barred law enforcement from detaining or questioning those with a holstered gun solely to check for a concealed handgun license."

That is great news.!

I'm glad to see them make quick work of resolving it and hope it gets passed.

Thanks for the link.

[jmra]

Open carry had the Huffines amendment removed in conference committee, now will head back to both houses for votes possibly as soon as Friday.

^^^^^^^^^ Shame too...IMO it was a good amendment. Yes...I know some will argue 'not necessary', or redundant, but the plain fact that LEO (not necessarily the rank and file) are so vehemently opposed to it...tells me right up front, it was needed.

IF O/C fails, they will need to accept a healthy part of the blame. If it passes...it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that the amendment was stripped.

IF the amendment was somehow perceived as 'insulting' to LEO then a lot of LEO need to grow up. They must also find the 4th amendment 'insulting'. The 4th was NOT written for the benefit of the police, but for the people.

I support LEO as much as anyone, but I fail to see how this would have been a problem for them.

Flint.

If you support the passage of OC then the amendment becomes a problem for YOU because as we have learned it will not pass with the amendment.
I think that we forget that it took many sessions to get where we are with CHL and it may take many sessions to get where we want to be. But one thing has held true throughout, the all or nothing approach has never worked in our favor.

[TexasJohnBoy]

What are the chances of a committee on SB11 working just as quickly? I guess the House has to appoint their conferees first....

[Charles L. Cotton]

What are the chances of a committee on SB11 working just as quickly? I guess the House has to appoint their conferees first....

Very good.

Chas.

[TexasJohnBoy]

What are the chances of a committee on SB11 working just as quickly? I guess the House has to appoint their conferees first....

Very good.

Chas.

You make me so happy with those words. Thank you sir and keep up the good work!

[gljjt]

So, is the owner of this forum "terribly mis-informed" or a "government lobbyist"? Can't wait for an answer to this one.

Mr. Cotton can't tell us the inside scoop on what's happening in Austin -- draw you own conclusion, I did.

All my reps in Austin voted correctly in my view. They were part of the 19 who voted against RINO Speaker Strauss, and they all voted for the licensed open carry legislation. As voters we voted in the most conservative legislature in history, and it looks like as 2A supporters, we got hosed.

I'll step on a soap box for a minute....

There are lots of new folks on here watching the legislature for the first time. Many have commented, myself included even though this is now the third session I've watched (not very many compared to others) that it's been very educational. What this admits is that I/we didn't really understand all the ins and outs of the process. We learn. It's interesting how adamant many of us are in our position and in the next breath admit that we are neophytes in how this all works. I get that we are frustrated and want an outcome but we should watch and learn and be cautious with our bravado.

I have seen Charles make a statement a few times that came to mind as I watched the debate yesterday. When the people that are usually very anti 2a/gun are the ones supporting what sounds good for us and/or, the ones who have been long time proven supporters are voting against it, that's a pretty good sign there is more to it than I/we are seeing on the surface and we should be thinking twice about our position. Our position is more than likely based on a lack of info or understanding. Doesn't mean always but a caution flag should be flying. I think the phrase I've seen is "when someone who is F rated is voting for it"....

....stepping off the box.

Ding, ding, ding.....we have a winner.....∆∆∆∆∆ This

[Robert91RS]

Report is posted and the amendment has been stripped.

[cprems]

IMO, the amendment wouldn't hinder LEO. I have nothing but utmost respect for our LEO's. If they wanted to stop you and ask for ID, they're smart enough to find a way to do it.

It was nothing but a platform the anti-gun lobbyists used to bludgeon the underlying bill. Nothing more.I believe that most big city Chiefs are appointed, while Sheriffs are voted in. IMO, the former are politicians and are usually imported in from States where guns are bad...

[flintknapper]

Open carry had the Huffines amendment removed in conference committee, now will head back to both houses for votes possibly as soon as Friday.

^^^^^^^^^ Shame too...IMO it was a good amendment. Yes...I know some will argue 'not necessary', or redundant, but the plain fact that LEO (not necessarily the rank and file) are so vehemently opposed to it...tells me right up front, it was needed.

IF O/C fails, they will need to accept a healthy part of the blame. If it passes...it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that the amendment was stripped.

IF the amendment was somehow perceived as 'insulting' to LEO then a lot of LEO need to grow up. They must also find the 4th amendment 'insulting'. The 4th was NOT written for the benefit of the police, but for the people.

I support LEO as much as anyone, but I fail to see how this would have been a problem for them.

Flint.

If you support the passage of OC then the amendment becomes a problem for YOU because as we have learned it will not pass with the amendment.
I think that we forget that it took many sessions to get where we are with CHL and it may take many sessions to get where we want to be. But one thing has held true throughout, the all or nothing approach has never worked in our favor.

^^^^^^^ Sadly...true. I'll just leave it at that.

This legislative session has been an eye opener for me. I dare say...I've learned a lot I didn't know previously about the processes and 'inner workings'. Not all of it pretty.

I have to tip my hat to those who worked so hard to try to get whatever we end up with.

[J.R.@A&M]

What are the chances of a committee on SB11 working just as quickly? I guess the House has to appoint their conferees first....

Very good.

Chas.

You make me so happy with those words. Thank you sir and keep up the good work!

[The Annoyed Man]

Open carry had the Huffines amendment removed in conference committee, now will head back to both houses for votes possibly as soon as Friday.

^^^^^^^^^ Shame too...IMO it was a good amendment. Yes...I know some will argue 'not necessary', or redundant, but the plain fact that LEO (not necessarily the rank and file) are so vehemently opposed to it...tells me right up front, it was needed.

IF O/C fails, they will need to accept a healthy part of the blame. If it passes...it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that the amendment was stripped.

IF the amendment was somehow perceived as 'insulting' to LEO then a lot of LEO need to grow up. They must also find the 4th amendment 'insulting'. The 4th was NOT written for the benefit of the police, but for the people.

I support LEO as much as anyone, but I fail to see how this would have been a problem for them.

Flint.

I'm happy to get the bill passed with or without the Amendment. My objection isn't the amendment, it's that the wrangling over it nearly cost us the bill. In my book, 95% of what I wanted is better than 0% of what I wanted. If that last 5% threatens passage, then the only smart thing to do (politically) is to pass the 95% bill, and get the rest of it in followup sessions, just like we've done with CHL as I pointed out in a previous post. I agree that it is a 4th Amendment issue.....but.....it is also a 2nd Amendment issue. If politics is the art of the possible, then maybe the Amendment wasn't possible today, but it might be possible in 2 years. In the meantime, we would have had open carry for the previous 2 years.

That is the measured approach that makes for steady and long-lasting progress. Passage with the amendment is OK, but passage without it is OK too until the day when a 4th Amendment protection upgrade can be added. An inexperience politician nearly wrecked that.

[ATX117]

Open carry had the Huffines amendment removed in conference committee, now will head back to both houses for votes possibly as soon as Friday.

^^^^^^^^^ Shame too...IMO it was a good amendment. Yes...I know some will argue 'not necessary', or redundant, but the plain fact that LEO (not necessarily the rank and file) are so vehemently opposed to it...tells me right up front, it was needed.

IF O/C fails, they will need to accept a healthy part of the blame. If it passes...it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that the amendment was stripped.

IF the amendment was somehow perceived as 'insulting' to LEO then a lot of LEO need to grow up. They must also find the 4th amendment 'insulting'. The 4th was NOT written for the benefit of the police, but for the people.

I support LEO as much as anyone, but I fail to see how this would have been a problem for them.

Flint.

I'm happy to get the bill passed with or without the Amendment. My objection isn't the amendment, it's that the wrangling over it nearly cost us the bill. In my book, 95% of what I wanted is better than 0% of what I wanted. If that last 5% threatens passage, then the only smart thing to do (politically) is to pass the 95% bill, and get the rest of it in followup sessions, just like we've done with CHL as I pointed out in a previous post. I agree that it is a 4th Amendment issue.....but.....it is also a 2nd Amendment issue. If politics is the art of the possible, then maybe the Amendment wasn't possible today, but it might be possible in 2 years. In the meantime, we would have had open carry for the previous 2 years.

That is the measured approach that makes for steady and long-lasting progress. Passage with the amendment is OK, but passage without it is OK too until the day when a 4th Amendment protection upgrade can be added. An inexperience politician nearly wrecked that.

I just want to see OC pass this session, amendment or not. I dare say that in two years we either won't need the amendment, or will have documented just cause for it.

[ScooterSissy]

If you support the passage of OC then the amendment becomes a problem for YOU because as we have learned it will not pass with the amendment.
I think that we forget that it took many sessions to get where we are with CHL and it may take many sessions to get where we want to be. But one thing has held true throughout, the all or nothing approach has never worked in our favor.

In my opinion, if we have a majority of Republicans in both sides of the Texas legislature, and they won't pass a bill that contains an amendment articulating and codifying a known 4th amendment issue; then we have some of the wrong R's in office.

[arthurcw]

If you support the passage of OC then the amendment becomes a problem for YOU because as we have learned it will not pass with the amendment.
I think that we forget that it took many sessions to get where we are with CHL and it may take many sessions to get where we want to be. But one thing has held true throughout, the all or nothing approach has never worked in our favor.

In my opinion, if we have a majority of Republicans in both sides of the Texas legislature, and they won't pass a bill that contains an amendment articulating and codifying a known 4th amendment issue; then we have some of the wrong R's in office.

While I understand your sentiment, it's been pretty well established that the problem was not the actual amendment, but that LEOs (mainly the political higher-ups) saw it as poke in the eye AND with CJ, et al... running their pie holes about it being de-facto unlicensed carry, it was an albatross. And yes, that was supposed to be lucky until some jackhole killed it. Well... CJ and Stickland killed it and Huffines hung it around our necks. I too liked the amendment at first. You can check the posts I made. I didn't fully realize how little logic plays a role when butts get hurt.

It's not that Rs don't like the 4th amendment, it's that they don't like being perceived as cop-haters. Like it or not, that was the message that was being repeated over and over and the ONLY one they heard. You can curse the darkness (Huffines) or light a candle (Huffman). Pity Huffines blew it out.