Dutton: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 license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.
Actually....... the grammar in the Dutton version is incorrect. Some of you might have difficulty seeing this, but I'm seeing it as someone with a lifetime of professional writing experience. You may have to stare at it a minute. Bear with me: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 whether a person
possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt
holster.
- the way it's written, it's stating "...solely because the person is carrying..." as a reason a person possesses a handgun license, not as a reason an LEO can't make an investigatory stop.
- even disregarding the first grammar issue, it's stating that the officer can't stop someone solely because they're carrying in a shoulder or belt holster, which isn't the semantic intent of the language.
- it uses "carry" redundantly. Your freshman English professor would kill you for this one: "carrying a
partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster."
As much as I hate to admit it, Huffine's version is far superior to Dutton's, grammatically speaking. It's actually very well written, although he should have a comma after "carrying" and "holster."