TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:

K5GU wrote:This is the link to the current SB 11 Conference Report. The side-by-side showing the changes by the committee begins on page 13, see the far right column.
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/84cc ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just started going thru this, but it appears much different from one at earlier link, and one linked in the tweet above.

v7a wrote:Looks like there won't be any action in the Senate today on HB910.

@scottbraddock tweet

Expecting the Texas Senate to wrap up for the day around 6:30 #TxLege

Does anyone know if the House is planning on wrapping up before 7:40pm today?

TVGuy wrote:

K5GU wrote: I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.

Codifying the law makes it a legal problem. I'm not saying whether it would hold water or not, but I believe there is enough grey area in the interpretation that it would at the very least lead to some court battles. They were not willing to risk that.

poppo wrote:

TVGuy wrote: With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

I think that argument was full of holes. If they went through the metal detector, setting it off would be grounds to ask to see it just as if you were conceal carrying. If they went through the CHL line without swiping, that would also be grounds to ask. Isn't the CHL line ONLY for CHL holders? If so, not swiping would be grounds to at a minimum ask you to go through the detector line where you are back to setting off the detector.

TVGuy wrote:

K5GU wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

You're probably correct. However if I was going to be alarmed in the Capitol buildings, it would be apprehension over who might be armed with a HIDDEN gun, not an openly visible gun in a holster.

You can't get into the Capitol with a hidden gun if you don't have a CHL. That's the catch with this...

The amendment said they can't ask to see CHL solely for OC of handgun. If you're concealed carrying you have to go through the detectors or swipe CHL to get in.

With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

TVGuy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I'm going to take a guess at something...this is just one small part, but it may be the straw that broke the camel's back on Dutton/Huffines amendment.

I think concern over being able to check for CHLs at the capitol of people open carrying killed it. Pressure from LEOs was some, people claiming it was the same as unlicensed OC was part, I think the Capitol was the deal breaker.

There is nothing in the law that would make an exception for a security line, so they were in fear that if some nut wanting to do harm walked up openly carrying a pistol as outlined in the law there would be no way DPS could ask for their CHL before they entered the capitol. I'm not sure they were wrong in this assumption either if the law was tested.

RoyGBiv wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

A groundswell of negative feedback from law enforcement between the day it was passed by the House (21-April) and the day it was received back from the Senate (25-May).

stash wrote:I have been gone since this morning. Would someone kindly tell me where 910 is now? Has it been sent to the house and or is the house working today?

NotRPB wrote:cross-posting from viewtopic.php?f=133&t=77720&p=984743#p984743" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I heard it might be a 3 word difference

I thought I recalled the 3 words "Shoulder or belt" (holster) being removed at House (Dutton) , which seem present in Huffines .. I might be wrong

might impact "licensed open carry in a visible car holster attached to transmission hump/steering column" ?
I don't know ...

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Overthehill wrote:Rhino convention underway

Yep. Disappointing.

This is purely Huffines fault. Again, there's a reason the Dutton Amendment was stripped in committee and Huffines is so full of himself he won't pull down this killer amendment.

Chas.

Is there any reason behind the scenes that would warrant this treatment?