TexasCHLforum.com

ScooterSissy wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

RPBrown wrote:The question I have is will this amendment be accepted by the senate or is this a bill killer?

The Dutton amendment probably would have been a non-issue for the Senate. But Stickland decided to run his mouth, so it might very well be a bill killer now.

I think the attention the amendment is getting has more to do with Bud Kennedy misrepresenting what the amendment means. He used Strickland's views, but he would have run with his misrepresentation anyway, that's his MO.

RPBrown wrote:The question I have is will this amendment be accepted by the senate or is this a bill killer?

LSUTiger wrote:

Texascrewser wrote: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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:Both of today's amendments are huge gains in my book -definitely worth waiting an extra day for. I have to say, though, I'm surprised Amendment 3 was approved. Charles's comments yesterday on one of the amendments made me think that the House would be hostile towards an amendment like this. I'm also curious why it wasn't considered yesterday. Was it intentionally held back? Were there more absences by the opposition in the House today?

Rep. Dutton came up with this on his own. You will note that it was not even read, much less discussed. That's all I'll say for now.

Chas.

Okay, I'll say just a little more, then I'll shut up.

Rep. Stickland, OCT and CATI are strongly hinting if not outright claiming that the Dutton Amendment has "unintentionally" achieved unlicensed open-carry. There are several problems with this claim. First, Stickland had nothing to do with the Dutton Amendment; it was written by Rep. Dutton and Rep. Rinaldi. Stickland had nothing to do with it, so his claim is . . . well, everyone knows what it is.

Secondly, are OCT/CATI and Stickland encouraging people to commit a crime by carrying a handgun without a license? While they will claim otherwise, that's the only rational interpretation of the claim that the inability of law enforcement to inquire about a license allows unlicensed people to carry a handgun. This gives some very important insight into the character and mindset of the people and organizations claiming the Dutton gave us backdoor unlicensed-carry. Dutton offered it to prevent harassment, but the zealots want to use it to promote lawlessness.

Finally, when one allows their ego and self-aggrandizement to take priority over the cause, one often shoots themselves and their cause in the proverbial foot. This false claim so proudly hailed by a vocal few has energized many in law enforcement to get involved with the goal of stripping the Dutton Amendment in the Senate. In doing so, they don't have to claim a desire to engage in racial profiling; they are arguing that they want to prevent unlawful activity sanctioned by OCT and Stickland. Brilliant!! Absolutely brilliant OCT/CATI/Stickland!

Now I'll shut up, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Chas.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote:But this amendment is a very big deal. If nobody ever has to worry about being stopped to show a license, that’s closer to the unlicensed-carry freedom promoted by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford.

“Where do you think they got the idea?” Stickland asked slyly Tuesday. That was after a leader of the Dallas-based Come and Take It Texas open-carry group wrote on social media: “We unintentionally just got unlicensed open carry.”

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/op ... rylink=cpy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RHenriksen wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:If it is a murder suspect, they already have probable cause to stop you - you match the description of a person of interest.

The ONLY thing this amendment does is prevent harassment by the police of people open carrying a handgun. If you are stopped and asked to identify, they will need to have probable cause other than the fact that you are carrying a handgun openly. If they state they have probable cause, regardless of how flimsy it seems, record the encounter, comply after notifying them of the law and go about your business. It will be sorted out VERY quickly if you do have a CHL and aren't confrontational. If you feel your rights have been violated, speak with the appropriate department, file an FOIA request for the stop including any 911 calls pertaining to it and build a case that it was unjustified. When you have a solid case, take the officer and the department to court.

Frankly I don't think it will be a big deal. Open carry will require some amount of education of the public as well as training of the 911 dispatchers to ask questions and calm down panicked hoplophobes, but I anticipate it will be worked out relatively quickly. It may take a bit more time in urban areas with populations over 1,000,000 uh, I mean 750,000 no wait, 175,000.

This will most likely be what bears out. I can't imagine even a very over zealous officer going on OC hunts for very long if they end up resulting in nothing. The only wildcard to this theory is that if LEOs end up nabbing a few unlicensed OCs in the process, it will extend the hunting expedition period a bit longer.

The other angle here is the agenda of the police chief. If they want to build a case for their bosses for pushing back against the OC law, they will keep beating the drum of how much MWAG calls eat up department resources - and always rolling a cruiser every time a call comes in, no matter how benign the circumstances. Then tell the residents of their community (and the legislature) that the reason service is declining is that the PD is too busy answering MWAG calls to take care of assaults, rapes, murders, etc.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Wes wrote:I don't think he is necessarily saying a chl holder. Any crime that is discovered because a person was stopped for open carrying, even open carrying itself, could be tossed out because the cop did not have cause to stop the person. CHL aside. Imagine a murder suspect who was picked up just for properly openly carrying and the arrest and murder weapon is tossed out in court because the evidence was illegally obtained. Thus a murderer might go free. DA most certainly won't be happy. Now, I'm no lawyer but I beleive this to be what he is saying, and honestly it makes sense to me.

If it is a murder suspect, they already have probable cause to stop you - you match the description of a person of interest.

The ONLY thing this amendment does is prevent harassment by the police of people open carrying a handgun. If you are stopped and asked to identify, they will need to have probable cause other than the fact that you are carrying a handgun openly. If they state they have probable cause, regardless of how flimsy it seems, record the encounter, comply after notifying them of the law and go about your business. It will be sorted out VERY quickly if you do have a CHL and aren't confrontational. If you feel your rights have been violated, speak with the appropriate department, file an FOIA request for the stop including any 911 calls pertaining to it and build a case that it was unjustified. When you have a solid case, take the officer and the department to court.

Frankly I don't think it will be a big deal. Open carry will require some amount of education of the public as well as training of the 911 dispatchers to ask questions and calm down panicked hoplophobes, but I anticipate it will be worked out relatively quickly. It may take a bit more time in urban areas with populations over 1,000,000 uh, I mean 750,000 no wait, 175,000.

mojo84 wrote:Who was the representative that that asked Rep. Phillips at the end of the day of the second reading if he would help fix the open carry law IF in a couple years the data suggested that it was a mistake and blood started running in the streets (my words here)? I believe he was the last one to address Phillips from the back microphone.

I really want to ask him if open carry proves to be a positive and blood does not run in the streets as he and some others want us to believe will happen, if he will help Phillips and the other pro gun rights folks to remove additional gun restrictions.

v7a wrote:Tell us how you really feel, Austin PD Chief Acevedo:

Open Season For Armed Criminals and Extremists

Yesterday's amendment to Texas' Open Carry Legislation is beyond belief and Aiken to open season for gang members, drug cartels, outlaw motor cycle gangs and any other criminal or extremist to defy the law with impunity, just brilliannt! If criminals, drug cartels, and extremists had a seat at the policy writing table they couldn't have come up with s better Amendment.

By prohibiting law enforcement from stopping or detaining to check for CHL, Texas is authorizing within our state lines any and all criminals to carry a firearm. My heart goes out to domestic violence victims and the victims of violent crimes in our State. Through this amendment we are facilitating the victimization of the people we are sworn to serve, protect and lead.

Here is a scenario, next time groups face off in our Capital City at the Capitol, Klan with their hoods on, Panthers with their faces covered, ISIS sympathizers with their faces covered and just about any other extremist group, armed with firearms authorized by Open-Carry, law enforcement will have absolutely no authority to ensure the people who are armed as they wish..........why bother common sense has officially died and writing any further would be fruitless.

K5GU wrote: I might also mention that Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer has a history of bringing point of order issues on the floor, especially if he is an opponent of the bill being debated on the floor.