HB910 on House Calendar for 3rd Reading

[mr1337]

My point is that emptying the mag is something that they can do if they don't agree with your lawful activity. Be that a rifle or a handgun. The guy in the video wasn't doing anything unlawful. I could absolutely see Art Acevedo telling the Austin PD to give open carriers with pistols as hard of a time as possible, no matter how lawful their activity is.

[puma guy]

It's always amusing to me how threads get steered down a completely different path. And then some are taken over the cliff.

[LSUTiger]

It's always amusing to me how threads get steered down a completely different path. And then some are taken over the cliff.

We have to find something to do until the HB910 action resumes. Does anybody have any new news as to when that might be?

[Ruark]

A lot of these guys would be 100% better off if they would just stop jabbering about "the constitution." But still.... after that incident with the jaywalker and Acevedo's reaction to it, nothing would surprise me at this point. That guy has got to go.

[stash]

Charles, with your last post here you sure make me feel better and I would probably rarely OC. I just think we need to get something big. My first and best choice was HB 308 but I don't think that is going to fly this session.

[viking1000]

I to think it will all work out besides the Dutton amendment, Strickland, and the ego trips of some House and Senate members.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Like I said in the campus carry thread, I'm losing faith quickly in these bills getting passed in this legislature. I do hope I'm wrong and we get campus and open carry.

[Papa_Tiger]

Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

[Callaway]

Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

Nailed it.

[jerry_r60]

Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

Nailed it.

I'm not real clear on the law but I think there is case law where LEO's can stop cars for license check without any other probable cause. I'm not supporting this but I guess the comparable thing would be all people carrying. We see it at license (DUI) checkpoints.

I think the Texas case is Lujan vs State

count said "...A brief suspicionless stop at a checkpoint is constitutionally permissible if its primary purpose is to confirm drivers' licences and registration and not general crime control...."

[TrueFlog]

Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

Nailed it.

I'm not real clear on the law but I think there is case law where LEO's can stop cars for license check without any other probable cause. I'm not supporting this but I guess the comparable thing would be all people carrying. We see it at license (DUI) checkpoints.

I think the Texas case is Lujan vs State

count said "...A brief suspicionless stop at a checkpoint is constitutionally permissible if its primary purpose is to confirm drivers' licences and registration and not general crime control...."

The reason the justices have allowed that is that it's at a checkpoint where everyone is being stopped. That ensures it's not profiling. The courts have been clear that stopping motorists at random is not permissible. So an Open Carry/CHL checkpoint might fly, but not stopping individuals at random.

[joelamosobadiah]

The reason the justices have allowed that is that it's at a checkpoint where everyone is being stopped. That ensures it's not profiling. The courts have been clear that stopping motorists at random is not permissible. So an Open Carry/CHL checkpoint might fly, but not stopping individuals at random.

It's sad, but I could totally see Austin setting this up at "key public safety" locations and events.

[mojo84]

The reason the justices have allowed that is that it's at a checkpoint where everyone is being stopped. That ensures it's not profiling. The courts have been clear that stopping motorists at random is not permissible. So an Open Carry/CHL checkpoint might fly, but not stopping individuals at random.

It's sad, but I could totally see Austin setting this up at "key public safety" locations and events.

Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

[Ruark]

Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

[mojo84]

Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

If they live there now, they are locals. It is what it is.