TX: Lt Gov Patrick says not enough Senate votes to pass Con Carry

[Flightmare]

Will it pass out of committee? It sounds like it should since they basically loaded the committee with supporters of the legislation.

Will it pass the Senate? I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it's only just a wish list item.

I am confident it will pass out of committee. The question is whether it will get a floor vote. The hurdle to get a floor vote is higher than it is to pass it. If it can get a vote on the floor (with no amendments), this will be headed to the governor's desk.

Will it make it to the floor? I don't know. I will say that this is the first session in history that the House has passed this legislation. It is also the first session in history that a senate committee has even heard this legislation. For those reasons alone, I am more confident this session than I was in previous sessions. This is by no means a done deal. Folks need to contact their senators and POLITELY but firmly express their position on this legislation.

[jerry_r60]

The lady from GOA did a great job.

[Papa_Tiger]

I think they are trying to stall. Figuring they can run out the clock for this year.

You obviously haven't paid attention to how the legislature works. There is a public hearing tomorrow where this will be the only bill discussed. Some time after that, the committee will offer up, vote on and pass out a committee substitute with the changes that the Senate believe make the House Bill better. For a pattern of what it might look like, see SB 2224.

Then the Senate Committee substitute of CS HB 1927 will go to the Senate floor where it the rules will be suspended to allow the consideration of the bill. This takes (I believe) 18 Senators to do. Anti-gun, or weakening amendments will be proposed by the Democrats and voted down in a marathon session that will take up pretty much all of the Senate's time that day. It will ultimately pass along partisan lines and then will be sent back to the House for concurrence (not likely), or appointing a conference committee (most likely) where members of both chambers hammer out differences that will then be given a simple up/down vote by each chamber. This will most likely happen in the last 3-5 days of the session.

The final bill passed will provide for some form of "Constitutional Carry", but may not resemble very closely the original (and in my opinion, fairly good) bill voted on in the House.

Well, I am happy to admit that I was wrong about a couple things here:
1) The HB 1927 as passed by the House was voted out of committee yesterday without any changes, substitutions or amendments
2) It appears that all of the amendments that the Senate plans to propose, will be made on the floor of the Senate
A list of the proposed changes by Senator Schwertner can be found here:
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/29 ... gislature/

• Create an offense for carrying a handgun while intoxicated

• Remove the $40 fee to receive a license to carry

• Enhance penalties for people convicted of felonies who are caught carrying handguns

• Strike a provision that forbade law enforcement officers from profiling a person based on whether or not they’re carrying a handgun

• Remove a provision that had said that gun-free zone laws don’t apply unless a person is asked to leave

• Require the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a free, online gun safety course

I could get behind most of them, but I really think that law enforcement is dead wrong on the Dutton amendment (bullet point 4 above) which states:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of a handgun solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun in a holster.

I would love to get Mr. Rothstein's perspective on this. In my view, if HB 1927 passes, it would be legal for anyone who is not a prohibited person over the age of 21 to carry a handgun openly or concealed in public. That means that if a person is walking down the street with a handgun, the ONLY way they would be breaking the law is if they are under 21 or a prohibited person. We do not allow random driver's license checks, there has to be some other offense or reasonable suspicion to precipitate a stop. The same sort of rule would apply here.

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

[RHenriksen]

"Require the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a free, online gun safety course"

Gun Owners of Maine created a free online training course; eventually the state police officially accepted proof of completion of that course as meeting the requirements for a carry permit! Great private/public partnership.

[Boxerrider]

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

I only notice police chiefs from metropolitan areas being vocal against constitutional carry. That's a small percentage of Texas' law enforcement community. Police chief is a hired/appointed position, not elected, and that can make them more likely to parrot the policies of city leadership instead of the will of the citizens.
LEOs I know assume that every person is armed all of the time. It isn't a negative perspective for them in most cases, but rather a precautionary one.

[RHenriksen]

"Require the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a free, online gun safety course"

Gun Owners of Maine created a free online training course; eventually the state police officially accepted proof of completion of that course as meeting the requirements for a carry permit! Great private/public partnership.

http://www.safer-maine.org/moodle/

[Boxerrider]

"Require the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a free, online gun safety course"

Gun Owners of Maine created a free online training course; eventually the state police officially accepted proof of completion of that course as meeting the requirements for a carry permit! Great private/public partnership.

http://www.safer-maine.org/moodle/

TSRA already has resources - https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/handgun-licensing and I expect that to be updated, and to possibly expand, with the passage of constitutional carry.

[Flightmare]

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

I only notice police chiefs from metropolitan areas being vocal against constitutional carry. That's a small percentage of Texas' law enforcement community. Police chief is a hired/appointed position, not elected, and that can make them more likely to parrot the policies of city leadership instead of the will of the citizens.
LEOs I know assume that every person is armed all of the time. It isn't a negative perspective for them in most cases, but rather a precautionary one.

I would counter by saying that many metropolitan areas which have chiefs who parrot city leadership are home to many left leaning individuals who elect that same city leadership. Even making chief an elected position would likely result in a similar political stance. Perhaps even MORE "political" as they would be more likely to run their department as a political division, as opposed to law enforcement.

[03Lightningrocks]

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

I only notice police chiefs from metropolitan areas being vocal against constitutional carry. That's a small percentage of Texas' law enforcement community. Police chief is a hired/appointed position, not elected, and that can make them more likely to parrot the policies of city leadership instead of the will of the citizens.
LEOs I know assume that every person is armed all of the time. It isn't a negative perspective for them in most cases, but rather a precautionary one.

I would counter by saying that many metropolitan areas which have chiefs who parrot city leadership are home to many left leaning individuals who elect that same city leadership. Even making chief an elected position would likely result in a similar political stance. Perhaps even MORE "political" as they would be more likely to run their department as a political division, as opposed to law enforcement.

[Boxerrider]

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

I only notice police chiefs from metropolitan areas being vocal against constitutional carry. That's a small percentage of Texas' law enforcement community. Police chief is a hired/appointed position, not elected, and that can make them more likely to parrot the policies of city leadership instead of the will of the citizens.
LEOs I know assume that every person is armed all of the time. It isn't a negative perspective for them in most cases, but rather a precautionary one.

I would counter by saying that many metropolitan areas which have chiefs who parrot city leadership are home to many left leaning individuals who elect that same city leadership. Even making chief an elected position would likely result in a similar political stance. Perhaps even MORE "political" as they would be more likely to run their department as a political division, as opposed to law enforcement.

I would agree with you on that - those people elected those city officials after all. I don't know that the rank and file officers in those areas have the same view as their chiefs, or the liberal voters.

[Flightmare]

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

I only notice police chiefs from metropolitan areas being vocal against constitutional carry. That's a small percentage of Texas' law enforcement community. Police chief is a hired/appointed position, not elected, and that can make them more likely to parrot the policies of city leadership instead of the will of the citizens.
LEOs I know assume that every person is armed all of the time. It isn't a negative perspective for them in most cases, but rather a precautionary one.

I would counter by saying that many metropolitan areas which have chiefs who parrot city leadership are home to many left leaning individuals who elect that same city leadership. Even making chief an elected position would likely result in a similar political stance. Perhaps even MORE "political" as they would be more likely to run their department as a political division, as opposed to law enforcement.

I would agree with you on that - those people elected those city officials after all. I don't know that the rank and file officers in those areas have the same view as their chiefs, or the liberal voters.

I think the general public votes for candidates who say they will support/oppose certain issues, and they tend to ignore any other issue. As a result, the hiring practices of city managers and council for senior city staff are largely overlooked.

[srothstein]

I would counter by saying that many metropolitan areas which have chiefs who parrot city leadership are home to many left leaning individuals who elect that same city leadership. Even making chief an elected position would likely result in a similar political stance. Perhaps even MORE "political" as they would be more likely to run their department as a political division, as opposed to law enforcement.

For proof of this, look at any sheriff's or constable's departments. As a general rule, the only thing worse for a police department than having the chief appointed by politicians is to make the chief a politician himself. There are some very good sheriffs and constables, but it is always because the people are watching and saying they want the department run right.

[srothstein]

• Create an offense for carrying a handgun while intoxicated

• Remove the $40 fee to receive a license to carry

• Enhance penalties for people convicted of felonies who are caught carrying handguns

• Strike a provision that forbade law enforcement officers from profiling a person based on whether or not they’re carrying a handgun

• Remove a provision that had said that gun-free zone laws don’t apply unless a person is asked to leave

• Require the Texas Department of Public Safety to create a free, online gun safety course

I could get behind most of them, but I really think that law enforcement is dead wrong on the Dutton amendment (bullet point 4 above) which states:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of a handgun solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun in a holster.

I would love to get Mr. Rothstein's perspective on this. In my view, if HB 1927 passes, it would be legal for anyone who is not a prohibited person over the age of 21 to carry a handgun openly or concealed in public. That means that if a person is walking down the street with a handgun, the ONLY way they would be breaking the law is if they are under 21 or a prohibited person. We do not allow random driver's license checks, there has to be some other offense or reasonable suspicion to precipitate a stop. The same sort of rule would apply here.

Why is law enforcement so opposed to the legislature codifying this to prevent harassment and abuse by LEOs of honest, law abiding citizens?
Law enforcement says that it will make their jobs harder by taking way a tool, but this is a tool that they already shouldn't have since after this passes, no law would be broken by the mere possession of a handgun in public.
Do all LEOs assume that every person they encounter is a felon? Seems like a negative way to start any encounter with the public.

I oppose some of these and support some. I do not support making ti an offense to carry while intoxicated unless they specifically define intoxicated to be levels of certain drugs (including alcohol) as revealed by a blood or breath test. The problem with the law now is that it is too general on allowing an officer to say the person appeared intoxicated and not show any evidence of it. I like laws that make it a clear sharp line on what is illegal or not. It is easier for the cops to enforce properly and seems more fair to the citizens to know what is illegal.

I generally support removing the fee for the LTC, but I don't have a lot of heartburn about leaving it there also. Since the license is now optional and really would be used to speed up the purchase of weapons (with some people using it for travel), I don't mind paying an appropriate fee for it.

I cannot argue against enhanced penalties for felons committing felonies. It just seems reasonable to me.

I like the provision requiring a verbal request to leave. I am not opposed too strongly to removing it, but it seems like most cops are going to employ that option first. Cops are generally lazy and will not arrest a person who is trying to be reasonable and wants to just leave and not come back.

I support requiring someone to develop an on-line safety class, and strongly support requiring it to be taught periodically in elementary, middle, and high schools. Having something for the responsible adults who are interested in a little basic training in firearms makes sense. I am not sure if I would require DPS to do it, but they "should" know this subject. I think they have a history that is questionable at best on their support for firearms though, so I think I would prefer the experts at training, TEEX, to do it. They do teach police courses too, so it is not too big a stretch for them.

And now for the big one, the Dutton Amendment. In theory, this is an unnecessary bill. I was taught that a person doing something that has as much chance of being legal as illegal is not grounds for a stop. The odds have to favor it being illegal for it to be probable cause. Obviously, if anyone can carry, the odds are way in favor of it not being illegal. But then we run into the Terry v. Ohio case, where the SCOTUS made a big exception to the Fourth Amendment by allowing stops and frisks for suspicious behavior. This is a case where the facts were just played just right and a good cop did his job right and stopped a crime. But it led to what I think of as bad precedent and weakened the Fourth Amendment. One way it weakened the right is by allowing the frisk. Most people do not know all the rules that the case requires, even most cops, and it is abused (ask any young Black man in New York about this) a lot. I have a lot of faith in most cops, but as a result of the misconceptions about frisks and searches, I think we do need this clause still in the law and probably will for the foreseeable future.

[Papa_Tiger]

I oppose some of these and support some. I do not support making ti an offense to carry while intoxicated unless they specifically define intoxicated to be levels of certain drugs (including alcohol) as revealed by a blood or breath test. The problem with the law now is that it is too general on allowing an officer to say the person appeared intoxicated and not show any evidence of it. I like laws that make it a clear sharp line on what is illegal or not. It is easier for the cops to enforce properly and seems more fair to the citizens to know what is illegal.

I generally support removing the fee for the LTC, but I don't have a lot of heartburn about leaving it there also. Since the license is now optional and really would be used to speed up the purchase of weapons (with some people using it for travel), I don't mind paying an appropriate fee for it.

I cannot argue against enhanced penalties for felons committing felonies. It just seems reasonable to me.

I like the provision requiring a verbal request to leave. I am not opposed too strongly to removing it, but it seems like most cops are going to employ that option first. Cops are generally lazy and will not arrest a person who is trying to be reasonable and wants to just leave and not come back.

I support requiring someone to develop an on-line safety class, and strongly support requiring it to be taught periodically in elementary, middle, and high schools. Having something for the responsible adults who are interested in a little basic training in firearms makes sense. I am not sure if I would require DPS to do it, but they "should" know this subject. I think they have a history that is questionable at best on their support for firearms though, so I think I would prefer the experts at training, TEEX, to do it. They do teach police courses too, so it is not too big a stretch for them.

And now for the big one, the Dutton Amendment. In theory, this is an unnecessary bill. I was taught that a person doing something that has as much chance of being legal as illegal is not grounds for a stop. The odds have to favor it being illegal for it to be probable cause. Obviously, if anyone can carry, the odds are way in favor of it not being illegal. But then we run into the Terry v. Ohio case, where the SCOTUS made a big exception to the Fourth Amendment by allowing stops and frisks for suspicious behavior. This is a case where the facts were just played just right and a good cop did his job right and stopped a crime. But it led to what I think of as bad precedent and weakened the Fourth Amendment. One way it weakened the right is by allowing the frisk. Most people do not know all the rules that the case requires, even most cops, and it is abused (ask any young Black man in New York about this) a lot. I have a lot of faith in most cops, but as a result of the misconceptions about frisks and searches, I think we do need this clause still in the law and probably will for the foreseeable future.

Thank you for your response. Definitely food for thought. I appreciate your insights.

[Flightmare]

Bill placed on senate intent calendar 5/4/2021. This is where things get interesting. If your senator has not publicly stated their opinion on this piece of legislation, I would urge you to contact them first thing in the morning to politely inform them of your position as their constituent.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/c ... 210504.htm
All the way at the bottom. May the fourth be with us!