TexasCHLforum.com

The Wall wrote:I guess next session will be open carry on campus. You can bet constitutional carry for sure.

RPBrown wrote:What a roller coaster ride this session has been. Although we got OC passed and still have a slim chance for CC, there were many good bills that were sacrificed to do so. In fact, I think these are the only two 2A bills that have made it this far. At least from all of them I had tagged they are the only two. There may have been one or two I wasn't watching but look forward to a close out post or article from Charles when the session is finally over.

To Charles and all of you that had time to keep us constantly informed, thank you. And a special thank you to Charles for all of the hard work, time, and effort you have spent not only this year but years past as well. I know for you it is a labor of love but this session had to be one of theist frustrating.

Now folks, it's time to start looking at the next session. Who do we want to represent us in legislation? Did your representatives and senators vote how you felt they should, not only on 2A but other issues as well? If not, what can you do to change it? What can we do to limit the leaders of OCT and OCTC from hampering our efforts with their antics?

Again, this has been a roller coaster ride but very educational on the workings of legislation. And again, thank you Charles.

pdxmale wrote:look it up --- just like I did

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... navpanes=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

safety1 wrote:

CJD wrote:

safety1 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:There are about 22 bills to go before we get to HB910

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 150527.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yes, but he said 10 to go?????

He was wrong lol

Yes I seen we had 22 to go, so does that mean they won't get to it today.

safety1 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:There are about 22 bills to go before we get to HB910

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 150527.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yes, but he said 10 to go?????

pt145ss wrote:Is this the difference in amendments?


Huffine amendment:
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.


Dutton Amendment:
CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. Prohibits a peace officer from making 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.

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.

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.

steveincowtown wrote:

CJD wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

The latter.

Where did the intent calendar disappear to? I saw it this morning.

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

rp_photo wrote:Will Open Carry loosen the requirements to keep weapons out of sight inside vehicles?

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?

viking1000 wrote:Pardon my loaded question.... Does it have to go to the house still, or does it go to the Governor ??

It says nothing else.