TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

viking1000 wrote:PBS running a story that it will be OK for police to stop and check your CHL.
That taking out the amendments was done so they could check .
I don't think that is in the bill. AM I wrong..?
I know PBS doesn't believe in the Constitution.

The courts have ruled that a law enforcement officer must have an articulable suspicion to stop a citizen for questioning. Open carrying a firearm, when it's legal to do so, does not create an articulable suspicion. Therefore they must have something else (furtive movement, suspicious actions, angry outburst, etc.) to stop you and ask to see your license.

So PBS is wrong, as is most of the media most of the time. All the amendment did was put into law what is already law. Nothing more. Removing it doesn't change a thing. It was removed for political reasons.

CJD wrote:

TXBO wrote:

CJD wrote:HB910 Senate Amendments Analysis distributed.

Does that now make it eligible for consideration or does it have to be distributed for a period of time?
Is there somewhere that we can read the analysis?

I think someone alluded to a 24 hour period, and it being on a calendar. And not that I know of.

EDIT: I lied, you can view it here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CJD wrote:

TXBO wrote:

CJD wrote:HB910 Senate Amendments Analysis distributed.

Does that now make it eligible for consideration or does it have to be distributed for a period of time?
Is there somewhere that we can read the analysis?

I think someone alluded to a 24 hour period, and it being on a calendar. And not that I know of.

EDIT: I lied, you can view it here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CJD wrote:

TXBO wrote:

CJD wrote:HB910 Senate Amendments Analysis distributed.

Does that now make it eligible for consideration or does it have to be distributed for a period of time?
Is there somewhere that we can read the analysis?

I think someone alluded to a 24 hour period, and it being on a calendar. And not that I know of.

EDIT: I lied, you can view it here:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CJD wrote:HB910 Senate Amendments Analysis distributed.

Salty1 wrote:" It might not be all the way there, but because of Senator Huffines, it's a lot closer that it was before his amendment."

Really? Seriously? If Huffine did not have his amendment the Bill would have passed hours before it did so saying that it is closer because of his amendment is being intellectually dishonest and misleading then again so was Huffine saying that he had support from an organization that opposed his Amendment.

His amendment had a very good chance of killing the Bill, fortunately it did not happen. He stated numerous times that his Amendment was the exact same as the House version, we now know it is not so back to the House it goes and hopefully gets a vote.....

Being a Monday morning quarterback is fine if it goes your way, had it blown up the Bill everybody would be looking to hang him, it comes down to risk versus reward and IMO it was not worth the risk..............

Right2Carry wrote:

dru wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:I read it's over one word.

I mean, honestly, do our legislators not have access to or have they never heard of Ctrl-C & Ctrl-V? The fact that its allllllllllmost there but not quite is just maddening

All you had to do was watch Huffines tonight to get the answer to your question.

Overthehill wrote:Rhino convention underway

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Huffines needs to go on the offensive.

If an officer sees a person NOT carrying openly, how does the officers behavior change vs interacting with someone carrying openly?
If I see a guy carrying openly, I'm thinking the likelihood of the guy being a "bad guy" is actually less than if I don't see a gun.
If I'm a bad guy, I'm gonna conceal.

The whole line of opposition to the Amendment is wrong. IMO

Thank you! My sentiment exactly.

No, Huffines needs to pull his amendment down, sit down and shut up!!! He must know what's happening, but he doesn't care. He pulled down his "constitutional carry" amendment in the interest of time, but he'll let HB910 go down for this!!?

Chas.

Procedurally, I agree. I assume it's a safe assuption that removing the Dutton Amendment will not be a problem through the House? I'm thinking Calendars more so than the final tally of votes, which seems assured.

Estes also is making a good argument against, eg: Judges will interpret it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Huffines needs to go on the offensive.

If an officer sees a person NOT carrying openly, how does the officers behavior change vs interacting with someone carrying openly?
If I see a guy carrying openly, I'm thinking the likelihood of the guy being a "bad guy" is actually less than if I don't see a gun.
If I'm a bad guy, I'm gonna conceal.

The whole line of opposition to the Amendment is wrong. IMO

Thank you! My sentiment exactly.

No, Huffines needs to pull his amendment down, sit down and shut up!!! He must know what's happening, but he doesn't care. He pulled down his "constitutional carry" amendment in the interest of time, but he'll let HB910 go down for this!!?

Chas.

Pawpaw wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:Why would NRA and TSRA be against this amendment?

Show me the basis for this question?

Chas.

Estes said that the TSRA is against it.

I heard him say the NRA was against it. I didn't hear him say TSRA was.

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:Why would NRA and TSRA be against this amendment?

Show me the basis for this question?

Chas.

Estes said that the TSRA is against it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:Why would NRA and TSRA be against this amendment?

Show me the basis for this question?

Chas.

K5GU wrote:Remember that Huffines is a "constitutional carry, aka unlicensed carry," guy as well as (I suspect) Bob Hall is also. Am I correct?