TexasCHLforum.com

I have been reading up on the proposed open carry law, but please correct me if I am wrong. With the new law (if it gets passed) if someone is open carrying, a LEO can't ask him/her to see their
CHL? Also if this law gets passed, does it become effective the day the governor signs it? Thanks in advance.

Carolina Cajun wrote:I have been reading up on the proposed open carry law, but please correct me if I am wrong. With the new law (if it gets passed) if someone is open carrying, a LEO can't ask him/her to see theirs CHL? Also if this law gets passed, does it become effective the day the governor signs it? Thanks in advance.

They can't be stopped and asked for CHL SOLELY because they are open carrying. LEO would have to have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.

It would be effective 1/1/2016

TVGuy thanks for the clarification

Looks like the only way OC will get passed now is if the bill is changed to allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people who are OC'ing, solely because they are OC'ing and with no reasonable suspicion the person is committing any crime.

I can't believe any state senator or congressman would support a law that allowed LEOs to stop a person solely because he is openly carrying and demand to see ID. Such a law is so clearly unconstitutional it almost defies logic to think that state representatives (most of whom are LAWYERS) could possibly think such a law would withstand a constitutional challenge.

Carolina Cajun wrote:I have been reading up on the proposed open carry law, but please correct me if I am wrong. With the new law (if it gets passed) if someone is open carrying, a LEO can't ask him/her to see their
CHL? Also if this law gets passed, does it become effective the day the governor signs it? Thanks in advance.

Please also note that in addition to the information that TVGuy posted, this bill would not prohibit law enforcement from making contact by striking up a consensual conversation with the OC'r. In other words, hi I'm officer ____, nice day we're having, what are you up to today. It in no way "chains" officers to their patrol car and makes them "watch from a distance" as some representatives proposed.

Right now open carry is on emergency life support and the issue is very much in doubt. Right now we don't know if open carry will pass. It's just to soon to tell, but it doesn't look good.

Texas1999 wrote:Looks like the only way OC will get passed now is if the bill is changed to allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people who are OC'ing, solely because they are OC'ing and with no reasonable suspicion the person is committing any crime.

I can't believe any state senator or congressman would support a law that allowed LEOs to stop a person solely because he is openly carrying and demand to see ID. Such a law is so clearly unconstitutional it almost defies logic to think that state representatives (most of whom are LAWYERS) could possibly think such a law would withstand a constitutional challenge.

No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control. Also, far less than 50% of the Texas legislature are attorneys.

Chas.

joe817 wrote:Right now open carry is on emergency life support and the issue is very much in doubt. Right now we don't know if open carry will pass. It's just to soon to tell, but it doesn't look good.

The filibuster prospects in the Senate and even the House are looming large. It's quite possible that Sen. Ellis will kill it just as he said he would, if given the chance. Remember, he said precisely that when the Huffines amendment was being debated. Remember also that Sen. Ellis has been in the Senate for many years, but the freshman Huffines didn't take his threat or the information he was provided seriously. He's too concerned about name recognition for his run for Congress.

Chas.

Has anyone heard why the GOP voted for an amendment(s) in the first place. On the surface one would think that they should have understood the divisive nature of it and that it was already a guaranteed protection. I am referring to the Dutton/Huffines amendment.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

joe817 wrote:Right now open carry is on emergency life support and the issue is very much in doubt. Right now we don't know if open carry will pass. It's just to soon to tell, but it doesn't look good.

The filibuster prospects in the Senate and even the House are looming large. It's quite possible that Sen. Ellis will kill it just as he said he would, if given the chance. Remember, he said precisely that when the Huffines amendment was being debated. Remember also that Sen. Ellis has been in the Senate for many years, but the freshman Huffines didn't take his threat or the information he was provided seriously. He's too concerned about name recognition for his run for Congress.

Chas.

Based on what I saw when he went up against Huffman in the debate over his amendment, I wouldn't hire Huffines to pick up after my dog. He's not qualified........ or if he is, he mumbles so much I can't understand what he's saying.....

No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control.

So then why the fierce opposition from LEOs to the amendment? After all, the amendment is just reiterating the current constraints of the Fourth Amendment. In which case, the amendment should not bother LEOs at all. Yet they're acting like they NEED the amendment stripped because they NEED to randomly stop and detain OC'ers without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Texas1999 wrote:

No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control.

So then why the fierce opposition from LEOs to the amendment? After all, the amendment is just reiterating the current constraints of the Fourth Amendment. In which case, the amendment should not bother LEOs at all. Yet they're acting like they NEED the amendment stripped because they NEED to randomly stop and detain OC'ers without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

I alluded to this in another thread. Some law enforcement folks see a gray area in court decisions, and specific codified law.

Carolina Cajun wrote:I have been reading up on the proposed open carry law, but please correct me if I am wrong. With the new law (if it gets passed) if someone is open carrying, a LEO can't ask him/her to see their
CHL? Also if this law gets passed, does it become effective the day the governor signs it? Thanks in advance.

Nothing has passed completely yet, and it has the possibility of being changed within the next few days. If the bill passes, we'll know the exact wording by midnight Sunday night at the latest. I'd suggest looking at the bill then to get the most accurate information.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Texas1999 wrote:

No, stripping the Huffines amendment does not "allow LEOs to randomly stop and search people . . ." U.S. constitutional law will control.

So then why the fierce opposition from LEOs to the amendment? After all, the amendment is just reiterating the current constraints of the Fourth Amendment. In which case, the amendment should not bother LEOs at all. Yet they're acting like they NEED the amendment stripped because they NEED to randomly stop and detain OC'ers without reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

I alluded to this in another thread. Some law enforcement folks see a gray area in court decisions, and specific codified law.

The opposition is three-fold, in my view. I know for a fact that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments are a slap in the face to law enforcement. It is a statement that "you cannot be trusted." Some LEOs are not trustworthy, but to paint the entire LEO community with that label is as absurd and unfair as to argue that all gun owners are dangerous sociopaths because of the acts a handfull of mass murderers. Gun owners were understandably offended when Bloomberg pointed to Sandy Hook as justification to disarm 150 million American gun owners, yet some argue that the wrongful acts of a small percentage of LEOs mean none of them can be trusted.

There is also concern that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments could jeopardize criminal cases and convictions, not for gun charges, but more serious offenses such as drug dealer cases, robbery, murder, etc. This is undoubtedly true, but the level of the risk is pure speculation. The more experienced the officer, the better his/her ability to articulate why they had a "reasonable suspicion" to interview the subject.

Some have argued that, if the Amendment does nothing more than state current constitutional law, then why oppose it unless you intend to violate the constitution? Does not the answer to that question lie in the logic we gun owners use when arguing that "no guns" signs are meaningless because criminals don't obey the law? The subject matter is different, but the logic is the same. It is already unlawful to murder someone, so the "no guns" sign is ineffective. If the constitution already prohibits the conduct that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments seek to address, why would the language found in the Dutton/Huffines Amendments be any more effective than the "no guns" signs?

I know some will outright misquote me or twist what I am saying, so let me be perfectly clear on my position vis-a-vis the Dutton/Huffines Amendments. (I'm not saying that either of the two Members quoted above would do this.) I do not oppose the language of the Dutton/Huffines Amendments being in Texas law. I vigorously oppose seeing HB910 die because of demands that such language be included.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If the constitution already prohibits the conduct that the Dutton/Huffines Amendments seek to address, why would the language found in the Dutton/Huffines Amendments be any more effective than the "no guns" signs?

It would, if and only if the language found in the amendments provided civil and legal recourse against the individual officer found to be violating Constitutional rights, i.e., a fine and/or jail time. Lacking teeth, there's absolutely no reason to say yet again "you may not do this," or "do this and I'll say you can't do it again!"

It's meaningless to have umpteen laws stating the same thing, if there's no consequence for the offender, no matter if he has a badge or not.