HB 910 Conference Committee

[K5GU]

On HB910 conference report, http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The important stuff begins on page 43.

OK, so they are the same amendment, but I would say that the original House version is phrased significantly cleaner... Anyone that's passed High School English can tell that the Senate version was obviously written in such a way that it was intended to delay the passing of the bill.

If you move to the far right side of the side-by-side, page 43 of the conference report, you'll see what they did in the conference.
On the bill analysis report, it's page 19.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... avpanes=19" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /CR.14.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ruark]

The senate amendment is horribly written. If you wrote that for a freshman English class, the teacher would hand it back to you with an "F."

[v7a]

Committee strips 'no stop' language from open carry bill

Since the "no stop" amendment was included in both chambers' open carry bills, Phillips said the House and Senate may each need to pass a special resolution to finally strip the language. Then each chamber would be able to vote on whether to agree with the bill before sending it to the governor.

Hopefully this resolution (if Patrick & Straus determine it's actually needed) will be taken care of earlier in the day today.

[XinTX]

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /CR.14.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That statute appears to address how a LEO can arrest without a warrant. Nothing I see there to prohibit license checks just because.

[safety1]

I just hope both chambers put this to a vote today and agree on whatever resolution that is required.
I'm still very hopeful.

[Beiruty]

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /CR.14.htm

As it is a crime to open carry a sidearm without a CHL, the mere observation of person with a holster handgun is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his CHL.

[v7a]

As it is a crime to drive a car without a driver's license, the mere observation of person driving a car is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his driver's license.

No, it is not.

[jimlongley]

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /CR.14.htm

As it is a crime to open carry a sidearm without a CHL, the mere observation of person with a holster handgun is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his CHL.

I feel exactly the opposite. Absent any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking place, open carry in and of itself must be treated as not criminal and does not justify a stop to check CHL, just as it is not an articulated suspicion that anyone driving a car is doing so without a license.

[safety1]

As it is a crime to drive a car without a driver's license, the mere observation of person driving a car is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his driver's license.

No, it is not.

What observation of a person driving a car would give you suspicion they don't have a DL??? I'm curious.
No one is that good....unless the person looks VERY young....I can't see this being valid.
I'm not a cop, but I am a supporter of them.

[sugar land dave]

Is there anything happening today on HB910 and SB11?

[ATX117]

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /CR.14.htm

As it is a crime to open carry a sidearm without a CHL, the mere observation of person with a holster handgun is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his CHL.

I feel exactly the opposite. Absent any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking place, open carry in and of itself must be treated as not criminal and does not justify a stop to check CHL, just as it is not an articulated suspicion that anyone driving a car is doing so without a license.

I think our biggest fear should be that the fact that the amendment went in and the was pulled out might make the LEOs think that they have a right to stop and check your license. If the amendment would never have happened they may have first questioned the legality of that a little more closely. I'm sure that if OC passes, we are going to be plenty of stories about license stops to discus.

[mr1337]

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /CR.14.htm

As it is a crime to open carry a sidearm without a CHL, the mere observation of person with a holster handgun is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his CHL.

The police officer would need reasonable suspicion that the person does not possess a CHL in order to detain the person.

Just like driving a car. Police can't pull every car over to verify they have a license. They have to have a reason to believe they don't have a license, or they have to pull them over under a different pretext (speeding, ran stop sign, etc.)

[Beiruty]

They removed the amendment, which makes sense to me, because that amendment is not needed anyway. There are already laws in place that require LEOs to have a reason before asking to see your CHL.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... /CR.14.htm

As it is a crime to open carry a sidearm without a CHL, the mere observation of person with a holster handgun is an articulated suspicion for LEO to stop the suspect and check his CHL.

I feel exactly the opposite. Absent any reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking place, open carry in and of itself must be treated as not criminal and does not justify a stop to check CHL, just as it is not an articulated suspicion that anyone driving a car is doing so without a license.

Defense Lawyer: Why you do not stop everyone who is driving to check his license while you did stop the defendant to check his CHL?
LEO to the Defense Lawyer: 95% of drivers do have valid Driving License while driving. 95% of the people do NOT have a CHL and may want to OC.

If the Amendment is NOT needed legally, why the PDs and many Reps/Senators are against it?

[mojo84]

After watching all the antics, listening to all the rhetoric and considering the consequences, I'm ok with removing the amendment and showing an officer my carry license if stopped and asked. Now if it becomes too often or I run into "that cop" that has a burr in his rear over someone open carrying, I'll take the necessary steps to deal with that particular situation on a case by case basis if or when it happens.

For those of you living in the big cities, I think you are the ones that may encounter such requests the most. I hope you will deal with any such contacts and requests in a professional courteous manner at the moment and take up any grievances via the proper channels and methods. If we will handle things in the right way without coming across as jerks, I believe it will be no time before the cops get more comfortable with open carry. I think most of us, cops and their leadership, are all scanning the horizons searching for and expecting the worst case scenarios.

No more than I plan to open carry and considering most cops are reasonable and have good intentions, I do not anticipate a problem. I think getting all worked up about the amendment or no amendment at this time is pointless and will lead to unnecessary heartburn.

I would like to know what steps need to be taken to file a false report complaint or charges against someone that calls in a malicious or frivalous MWAG call?

[baseballguy2001]

I'll take the necessary steps to deal with that particular situation on a case by case basis if or when it happens. -- Really? What 'steps' would that be? An LEO stops you for no reason because you are open carrying -- HE says you were acting 'strange' and he would like to see your license ... what steps?

Once I had an LEO try to give me a ticket for operating a vehicle, and I was the passenger.

I fought the ticket and won. She said she observed me behind the wheel, she could tell because I had a ball cap on. All four of us did. The driver and I both had ballcaps and sunglasses on. I was never driving, but she claimed erroneously, that I was. She also said we ran a red light. (which video proved false too)

LIMITED GOVERNMENT MEANS JUST THAT.