Couldn't someone point this out to the police? Or are they just using this as an excuse to be against it rather than come right out and say they want people to think they can be randomly stopped for this and hopefully most people won't know and sue them?Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.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.
Chas.
Clarification on proposed open carry law
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.
Chas.
The police have proven themselves to be untrustworthy so that's why it needs to be included so their isn't any misunderstanding about what is allowed or not. I don't think its unfair at all since a normal person cant go around checking to make sure a police officer has the correct credentials.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 17787
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
I guess it's a good thing you don't hold all gun owners to the same standard. I'd hate to lose by Second Amendment rights because another gun owner acted inappropriately or unlawfully.winters wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.
Chas.
The police have proven themselves to be untrustworthy so that's why it needs to be included so their isn't any misunderstanding about what is allowed or not. I don't think its unfair at all since a normal person cant go around checking to make sure a police officer has the correct credentials.
Chas.
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
I would say a large majority of legal gun owners are very responsible. We could get into a discussion about the high moral standards politicians and attorneys convey. Lol
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:04 pm
- Location: Texas Hill Country
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but any idea of when the Governor will sign the legislation and when it will go into effect?
LC9s, M&P 22, 9c, Sig P238-P239-P226-P365XL, 1911 clone
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 1
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:45 pm
- Location: Las Colinas
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Goes into effect on Jan 1, 2016.johncanfield wrote:My apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but any idea of when the Governor will sign the legislation and when it will go into effect?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:04 pm
- Location: Texas Hill Country
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Great - thanks!
LC9s, M&P 22, 9c, Sig P238-P239-P226-P365XL, 1911 clone
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Because Jan 1, 2016 is the stated effective date in the bill. This date was specified at the request of DPS to give them time to train CHL instructors on the changes in the law.TEA wrote:Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Hasn't been signed yet as of 6/5.jmra wrote:Because Jan 1, 2016 is the stated effective date in the bill. This date was specified at the request of DPS to give them time to train CHL instructors on the changes in the law.TEA wrote:Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.
Chance favors the prepared. Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?
There is no safety in denial. When seconds count the Police are only minutes away.
Sometimes I really wish a lawyer would chime in and clear things up. Do we have any lawyers on this forum?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
It will be signed, of course the gov signature is not required for it to become law.LSUTiger wrote:Hasn't been signed yet as of 6/5.jmra wrote:Because Jan 1, 2016 is the stated effective date in the bill. This date was specified at the request of DPS to give them time to train CHL instructors on the changes in the law.TEA wrote:Why January 1st? Most new legislation goes into effect September 1st, which is the start of the fiscal year and new budget in Texas.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
If the governor doesn't sign it, isn't that called a pocket veto?It will be signed, of course the gov signature is not required for it to become law.
There's not much time to override a veto of any form.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Incorrect.treadlightly wrote:If the governor doesn't sign it, isn't that called a pocket veto?It will be signed, of course the gov signature is not required for it to become law.
There's not much time to override a veto of any form.
"Upon receiving a bill, the governor has 10 days in which to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature. If the governor vetoes the bill and the legislature is still in session, the bill is returned to the house in which it originated with an explanation of the governor's objections. A two-thirds majority in each house is required to override the veto. If the governor neither vetoes nor signs the bill within 10 days, the bill becomes a law. If a bill is sent to the governor within 10 days of final adjournment, the governor has until 20 days after final adjournment to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without a signature."
http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/
Last edited by jmra on Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 2
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 1:17 pm
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
Learn something new every day - thanks!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts in topic: 4
- Posts: 10371
- Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
- Location: Ellis County
Re: Clarification on proposed open carry law
treadlightly wrote:Learn something new every day - thanks!
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member