TexasCHLforum.com

Rrash wrote: I agree that Art Acevedo's comments made it sound like police were going to pull over anyone with a handgun and ask for identification. Lets just pretend that would actually happen. It would not take long for there to be some serious media blowback.

Doubt that. Most of the media are anti-2A and could care less is gun carriers are hassled. They'd feel it was perfectly justified.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

Perhaps it was perceived as such. But a few (a very few) CLEO's have brought about this lack of trust. A small minority of CLEO's would have used the license checks to harass OC'ers. This amendment was specifically targeted at them. To the good LEO's, the amendment was superfluous as they would do the right thing regardless. The few bad ones may likely ignore this anyway, as I don't see any penalty associated with it. But at least we have a clear intent from the legislative branch.

ELB wrote: And this over an amendment that basically just restated a constitutional principle, as the Senate Committee own analysis stated! The report justified removing the Dutton amendment by saying the language was redundant and therefore didn't matter -- which also means that leaving it in doesn't matter either! Or did the committee lie?

I have been a strong proponent for the Dutton/Huffines amendment from the get go. Were it not there, several cities could manufacture a defacto ban on OC via "license checks". And while the committee was correct in stating that the amendment merely restated the summation of case law, someone would have had the burden of going through the judicial proceedings in order to halt harassment of OC'ers via a series of "license checks". This amendment will hopefully remove that step in the process. Now at least the legislative intent is so stated and some of the bed wetter CLEO's can't try to wiggle around it claiming ambiguity in the law.