HB410 status

[seamusTX]

I did not know CLEAT's position on this bill. In the past, CLEAT has been opposed to most liberalization of weapon laws.

I realize that these organizations are made up mostly of bureaucrats and don't necessarily represent the views of police officers.

I appreciate those of you who respect the citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

The provisions of HB410 were rolled into the DPS Sunset bill (HB2730) that passed today.

Chas.

[Coogan]

I believe the following link represents the amendment which incorporated HB410 into HB2730:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 30H231.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading the amendment, it looks like we are still suppose to present our CHL license when asked for ID (if carrying). However, we cannot be prosecuted for failing to present the CHL license.

Also, I believe HB410 contained a provision to prevent the police officer from seeing that you have a CHL license when they run your driver license. The amendment to HB2730 does not contain the language to block your CHL status. If this does become law, I could envision a scenerio where a CHL holder is stopped by a police officer, the CHL holder who is carrying only gives the police officer their driver license, the officer runs the DL and notices that the person has a CHL, then returns to the driver and asks them if they currently have a gun in the vehicle. This question would never come up if someone without a CHL was carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.

If I´m not reading this amendment correctly, someone please let me know. I am not complaining -- at this late stage in the game, something is better than nothing, and I realize HB410 probably does not have enough support to pass the Senate. I just want to make sure readers of this forum are aware of what was actually changed.

[boomerang]

Look at the next amendment. (withdrawn)

[Coogan]

Look at the next amendment. (withdrawn)

Since it was withdrawn, I don´t think it was added to the bill. Am I wrong on this?

[boomerang]

You're right. I was just pointing out that part of HB 410 wasn't completely forgotten. Anyway we still have to see what happens in the senate.

[dac1842]

Personally, regardless of the law change. I will present my CHL and will notify that I am carrying. I was an LEO for 15 years, I consider it a courtesy to the officer. Anytime another LEO is stopped by an LEO the first words are I am a police officer and I packing. I know many on here disagree with that, but, if you show him some courtesy and sincere concern for his safety then he might be inclined to return the courtesy. I have done this for years with and without a CHL and to this date I have never been ticketed.

I know the MPA folks dont have to declare a weapon, but if any kind of stats are maintained I would bet that the percentage of MPA's getting ticketed dwarfs the percentage of CHL's getting ticketed. Not that the CHL is ticket free card, but if you are courteous and show sincere concern for the officer, it is generally returned.

[jlangton]

Personally, regardless of the law change. I will present my CHL and will notify that I am carrying. I was an LEO for 15 years, I consider it a courtesy to the officer. Anytime another LEO is stopped by an LEO the first words are I am a police officer and I packing. I know many on here disagree with that, but, if you show him some courtesy and sincere concern for his safety then he might be inclined to return the courtesy. I have done this for years with and without a CHL and to this date I have never been ticketed.

I know the MPA folks dont have to declare a weapon, but if any kind of stats are maintained I would bet that the percentage of MPA's getting ticketed dwarfs the percentage of CHL's getting ticketed. Not that the CHL is ticket free card, but if you are courteous and show sincere concern for the officer, it is generally returned.

Myself,as well as a large number of folks I know are of the opinion that it's none of the officer's business whether I have a firearm or not. By declaring that I have a firearm on my person or about my person does nothing more than make that officer have concerns about my firearm,when the fact is I have no intentions of harming the officer. If the officer doesn't know, they write the citation, and we both go on down the road with no hassles. If the officer knows, then they can use their "right" to disarm me just because they choose to do so. This is wrong, and is the main reason this bill is being pushed. The general public does not have to disclose this information, so it is our opinion that a group of known trustworthy people should not have different standards and have the potential problem of being disarmed in public like a common thug. There are no policies or checks on an officer's "right" to disarm me, and I have a problem with that. Passage of this bill will eliminate a large percentage of the disarmings that occur because the officer won't know, so they'll just do their job without harassing citizens that have no intentions of harming them.
JL

[seamusTX]

If the officer knows, then they can use their "right" to disarm me just because they choose to do so.

Excuse me for nitpicking, but this is not a right, it is a power.

Rights protect people from government power. Powers give government agents the legal ability to do something.

- Jim

[jlangton]

If the officer knows, then they can use their "right" to disarm me just because they choose to do so.

Excuse me for nitpicking, but this is not a right, it is a power.

Rights protect people from government power. Powers give government agents the legal ability to do something.

- Jim

Not a problem-nitpick away- Power it is,Right it is not. But I did get my point across as you understood what I was saying.
JL

[seamusTX]

Yes, I understood what you were saying.

I also do not like the attitude of police officers who disarm CHL holders for no apparent reason.

However, I don't know if this bill would fix the problem even it it becomes law. The police will still get a person's CHL status from DPS when they make traffic stops.

Also, I can't imagine the following exchange going well:

Officer: Do you have any weapons?
Citizen: I decline to answer that question.

- Jim

[barres]

Yes, I understood what you were saying.

I also do not like the attitude of police officers who disarm CHL holders for no apparent reason.

However, I don't know if this bill would fix the problem even it it becomes law. The police will still get a person's CHL status from DPS when they make traffic stops.

Also, I can't imagine the following exchange going well:

Officer: Do you have any weapons?
Citizen: I decline to answer that question.

- Jim

HB410, before it got amended into the other bill, included a provision that blocked the person's CHL status from coming up on the DL check.

[jlangton]

HB410, before it got amended into the other bill, included a provision that blocked the person's CHL status from coming up on the DL check.

Exactly...and is how it should have been.
JL

[Charles L. Cotton]

I believe the following link represents the amendment which incorporated HB410 into HB2730:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 30H231.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading the amendment, it looks like we are still suppose to present our CHL license when asked for ID (if carrying). However, we cannot be prosecuted for failing to present the CHL license.

Also, I believe HB410 contained a provision to prevent the police officer from seeing that you have a CHL license when they run your driver license. The amendment to HB2730 does not contain the language to block your CHL status. If this does become law, I could envision a scenerio where a CHL holder is stopped by a police officer, the CHL holder who is carrying only gives the police officer their driver license, the officer runs the DL and notices that the person has a CHL, then returns to the driver and asks them if they currently have a gun in the vehicle. This question would never come up if someone without a CHL was carrying under the Motorist Protection Act.

If I´m not reading this amendment correctly, someone please let me know. I am not complaining -- at this late stage in the game, something is better than nothing, and I realize HB410 probably does not have enough support to pass the Senate. I just want to make sure readers of this forum are aware of what was actually changed.

You are correct. If the Sunset Bill passes with this provision in it, then CHL's will have a duty to display their CHL, but there will be no penalty for failing to do so.

BTW, the floor amendment that prevented LEO's from being notified that a person had a CHL when they check their DL status doomed the bill. That was the primary justification for removing the duty to disclose a CHL. There was no reason to penalize a CHL if they forgot, or were nervous during a traffic stop, when the officer was going to be advised anyway. Whether you agree with it or not, like it or not, HB410 was not going to pass with that provision. The Senate committee had already blasted the Senate companion bill and it didn't have the 410 floor amendment.

Chas.

[Purplehood]

I agree with the take what you get for now theory...