HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[K5GU]

Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

[gdanaher]

We know how chl holders behave....the least likely folks to ever intentionally commit a crime. The chances of anyone open carrying is pretty slim anyway, and then the odds that they would be doing so illegally are even more remote. Remember that the weapon must be in a proper holster, so someone displaying a .357 jammed into his pants might just be subject to suspicion anyway.

[Texascrewser]

What is the time line for it to get to Senate Committee?

[A-R]

When it comes to dealing with cops it comes down to attitude. Do you see them as the enemy or ally? Do they see you as a citizen or criminal. Attitude dictates how one treats the other. Bad attitude from either one leads to a negative encounter that perpetuates the negative attitudes.

Treat each other with respect As people, including cops, get used to open carry, it will become less of an issue. I have a wallet that has two see thru ID slots. It will be easy for me to show my chl and move on. If it becomes too common or I believe the cops are abusing the system, I'll file a complaint. If they become too aggregious in their actions, I file a civil rights suit.

Jumping to the Nazi Germany comparisons such as some of the extremist do is a bit of premature overreaction in my opinion.

THIS

[LSUTiger]

What is the time line for it to get to Senate Committee?

I am totally guessing on 4/27 or 4/28 would be next senate committee meeting for STATE AFFAIRS (same committee for SB17) or is it Criminal Justice? It's not on either committee agenda before then.

[K5GU]

If I was stopped for OC'ing I would be very respectful to the officer and not have an attitude towards them and show them the requested identification then go on my way. The best thing we could do if faced with that situation is to be a good ambassador for the entire CHL program. I believe that most officers if treated respectfully will change their behavior after a few positive encounters.

IMO to get respect we have to show respect in a professional manor, remember this is going to be new for all of the LEO's out there as well. There will be a learning curve for the LEO's to become comfortable with the fact that guns are being carried openly which conflicts with their previous training.

It will be beneficial to all Texas gun owners if Salty1's advice is taken to heart. This is how we make open-carry as successful has concealed-carry has been for 20 years.

Chas.

Agree. And in defense of peace officers, they will not know if someone carrying a handgun openly is licensed or not. And unless the actor is licensed (when OC becomes law), under PE 46.02 it's still an unlawful act to openly carry a handgun in public.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

If HB910 passes with the Dutton amendment intact, then it would constitute a statutory provision that merely wearing a handgun is not reasonable suspicion to stop and interview or detain a person. A LEO would have to have something else. Candidly, it won't take a lot more, but carrying a gun alone will not be sufficient.

The Star-Telegram article commented that the amendment would possibly allow a child to carry a handgun. While the statement was absurd, it does provide a good example of the "something more" that would provide reasonable suspicion to interview a person. Since one must be 21 years old to get a CHL (absent the military exception), if a 14 year old kid is wearing a handgun, then the officer would have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime was being committed, i.e. UCW. Thus, the officer could interview the subject. PLEASE, don't talk about people who look young for their age. If they look that young, then they should be flattered that the officer would want to see their CHL.

Chas.

[TexasCajun]

What is the time line for it to get to Senate Committee?

I am totally guessing on 4/27 or 4/28 would be next senate committee meeting for STATE AFFAIRS (same committee for SB17) or is it Criminal Justice? It's not on either committee agenda before then.

I believe that HB910 would have to go through a first reading in the Senate where it would be assigned to committee (presumably the same committee that heard SB17).

Of course, it's been a while since I've stayed at a Holiday Inn....

[K5GU]

Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

If HB910 passes with the Dutton amendment intact, then it would constitute a statutory provision that merely wearing a handgun is not probable cause to stop and interview or detain a person. A LEO would have to have something else. Candidly, it won't take a lot more, but carrying a gun alone will not be sufficient.

The Star-Telegram article commented that the amendment would possibly allow a child to carry a handgun. While the statement was absurd, it does provide a good example of the "something more" that would provide probable cause to interview a person. Since one must be 21 years old to get a CHL (absent the military exception), if a 14 year old kid is wearing a handgun, then the officer would have probable cause to believe a crime was being committed, i.e. UCW. Thus, the officer could interview the subject. PLEASE, don't talk about people who look young for their age. If they look that young, then they should be flattered that the officer would want to see their CHL.

Chas.

I guess where I'm confused is the amendment applies to the law "under the authority of 411 H, and doesn't amend 46.02
Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene? Public is "alarmed", etc.?

[hovercat]

Nothing in the law stops an officer from walking up and talking with you. " Looks like rain today......". Police can tell lot from how you react.
The amendment and an OC handgun are not magic talismans that keep police away. And let you win the trailer park lotto of a civil lawsuit if police look at you. It only keeps them from asking for papers.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

If HB910 passes with the Dutton amendment intact, then it would constitute a statutory provision that merely wearing a handgun is not probable cause to stop and interview or detain a person. A LEO would have to have something else. Candidly, it won't take a lot more, but carrying a gun alone will not be sufficient.

The Star-Telegram article commented that the amendment would possibly allow a child to carry a handgun. While the statement was absurd, it does provide a good example of the "something more" that would provide probable cause to interview a person. Since one must be 21 years old to get a CHL (absent the military exception), if a 14 year old kid is wearing a handgun, then the officer would have probable cause to believe a crime was being committed, i.e. UCW. Thus, the officer could interview the subject. PLEASE, don't talk about people who look young for their age. If they look that young, then they should be flattered that the officer would want to see their CHL.

Chas.

I guess where I'm confused is the amendment applies to the law "under the authority of 411 H, and doesn't amend 46.02
Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene?

It is confusing as to its location in the Gov't Code rather than the Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure. Even though the language would appear in Subchapter H of Chp. 411, it is not limited to CHLs. You are correct that it does not modify Tex. Penal Code §46.02, but it does state that merely carrying a handgun does not constitute probable cause to investigate.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I know it may sound somewhat weak, but the Sheriff who testified for campus-carry in the Senate (can't recall his name) was absolutely correct when he responded to Sen. Zaffirini's question about how LEO's would know who was licensed. His response was to the effect that experienced officers can tell if someone is up to no good. While this is not true in all situations, it is in most.

Chas.

[v7a]

Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

[K5GU]

Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

If HB910 passes with the Dutton amendment intact, then it would constitute a statutory provision that merely wearing a handgun is not reasonable suspicion to stop and interview or detain a person. A LEO would have to have something else. Candidly, it won't take a lot more, but carrying a gun alone will not be sufficient.

The Star-Telegram article commented that the amendment would possibly allow a child to carry a handgun. While the statement was absurd, it does provide a good example of the "something more" that would provide reasonable suspicion to interview a person. Since one must be 21 years old to get a CHL (absent the military exception), if a 14 year old kid is wearing a handgun, then the officer would have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime was being committed, i.e. UCW. Thus, the officer could interview the subject. PLEASE, don't talk about people who look young for their age. If they look that young, then they should be flattered that the officer would want to see their CHL.

Chas.

I guess where I'm confused is the amendment applies to the law "under the authority of 411 H, and doesn't amend 46.02
Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene?

It is confusing as to its location in the Gov't Code rather than the Penal Code or Code of Criminal Procedure. Even though the language would appear in Subchapter H of Chp. 411, it is not limited to CHLs. You are correct that it does not modify Tex. Penal Code §46.02, but it does state that merely carrying a handgun does not constitute probable cause to investigate.

Chas.

Okay. I'll leave it there. I was under the belief that probable cause was used more to justify detain and arrest, and not an interview. I grew up in areas where LEO's had a lot more discretion than they do now.

Thanks for the reply, and you and Alice, et al. are doing a GREAT JOB!

[Ruark]

I agree. I also think the more people that open carry in a professional nonshowy manner, ie. men not in skirts or dressed like a gangbanging thugs, and deal with others including cops in a respectful manner, the better off we will all be and the sooner more progress will be made.

Yes, you can call me Captain Obvious.

Captain Obvious makes an extremely important point, especially in these "early days" of Texas OC: that we are all ambassadors for the CCW/OC population. People will judge the CCW/OC concept based on what they see. Please don't open carry and wear your "Kill'em all, let God sort'em out" t-shirt. Every person who approaches you in fear, and walks away thinking "hey, he's OK, he's a nice guy" is a huge victory.