TexasCHLforum.com

safety1 wrote:other thread is saying the amendments stay in as where?? nothing changed (unconfirmed by myself)

jerry_r60 wrote:We learned the other night that it's not over until it's over. We have a threat of a filibuster now and that may very well happen but who knows what other deals might get struck between now and the end. Doesn't look good but just saying......

pdxmale wrote:here is the effected change they came up with.....
original:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
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.


NEW:

SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:
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. [FA9]

RedTop wrote:

hovercat wrote:I also blame the legislators who voted against. OCT provided some cover to hide behind, but if they had wanted to pass OC, they would have.

Exactly.....why I believe that Texas Legislature is full of just as many Rino's as Washington.....One thing about it...Dems / Libs will fight til the bitter end.....Republicans just cave

partyguy816 wrote:Nope not at all. I mainly blame OCT personally.

Low Budget Shooter wrote:So, under the new open carry law, Acevedo and his ilk think it would be "doing their job" to stop people who are peacefully open carrying and ask for their papers. Maybe the Dutton/Huffines amendment is more important that we thought! That doesn't mean the amendment is making the bill more likely or easier to pass, but it does shed some more light on its importance.

steveincowtown wrote:The fact that so many LEO Organizations seem to be coming out against the amendment, tells me that we need the amendment.

The amendment is just restating what the 4th amendment guarantees and what case law stands behind. If someone is engaged in an activity which is lawful, an LEO may not engage in a non consensual stop to question them about that activity.

It concerns me gravely that ANY LEO would protest this amendment. If we amended the HB910 to say "LEOs may not randomly mace people" or "No use of Taser on people that are not a threat" would we get them same blow back?

If an LEO is a student of the law, and wishes to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution, this amendment should not bother them in the least.