TexasCHLforum.com

timtheteacher wrote:ELIGIBLE AT 2:40 PM MAY 26, 2015:

HB 910 Phillips / Flynn / White, James / Riddle / Guillen / et al.


Could be soon......

joe817 wrote:When HB 910 comes to the floor tomorrow for concurence vote it is a simple yea or nay vote. What determines its passage. IE: simple majority, plurality, 3/5 or what?

You see, I have to have SOMETHING to worry about tonight!

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.

safety1 wrote:The House will convene at 1:00pm today any chance HB910 comes up?

texasmusic wrote:

CJD wrote:

texasmusic wrote:"Suspend the constitutional three day rule"

What does this mean re: the Texas constitution? I did a search & it turned up a few sections.

The Texas Constitution requires the bill to be heard on 3 several days. They can suspend this rule, however.

This one?

(b) When such a period of emergency or the immediate threat of enemy attack exists, the Legislature may suspend procedural rules imposed by this Constitution that relate to:
(1) the order of business of the Legislature;
(2) the percentage of each house of the Legislature necessary to constitute a quorum;
(3) the requirement that a bill must be read on three days in each house before it has the force of law;

texasmusic wrote:"Suspend the constitutional three day rule"

What does this mean re: the Texas constitution? I did a search & it turned up a few sections.

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Folks, if two F-rated Democrats (Ellis and West) are in favor of the Amendment, that should tell you something. They aren't worried about racial profiling, they have a plan.

Chas.

What can they possibly do? Is the amendment identical to Dutton?

I'm not putting that on a public forum.

Chas.

Is the language identical?

safety1 wrote:

CJD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

I think it's going to be making UCW, or illegally carrying firearm, a felony, so as to dissuade people from violating it.

Would this still be a concurrence vote in the house, or to the governors desk from here. It's changing the bill with her amendment

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Did she say what it was?

Chas.

Vol Texan wrote:So...Huffman is going to raise the punishment for unlicensed carry of any kind.

Thoughts on this?

NorthTexas wrote:

K5GU wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.

The same as it is today, right? (If I'm interpreting your question correctly).

I'm no expert on MPA, but if I understood Huffman correctly, today an officer could pull over someone open carrying in their car, as that should be illegal either way (CHL must be concealed, MPA calls for concealed as well I believe). If Amendment 9 was attached and passed, police wouldn't know whether an open-carried gun in a car was done so legally (with CHL) or illegally (without CHL) because they wouldn't be allowed to pull the person over to check whether they had a CHL. Sorry if that's not very clear...

NorthTexas wrote:

TXBO wrote:

NorthTexas wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Wow. Huffines is doing a whole lot of hemming and hawing when she asks him specific questions about current law. He doesn't seem to know much.

I'm not applauding her, but she's not making him look very good.

She has a fair point, his amendment will affect the Motorist Protection Act and he's totally unaware of that fact. He made a comment about how he's not an attorney, but as a Legislator he should do his homework (or have someone on his staff do it) to make sure it won't conflict with current law.

I don't see how. As a CHL holder, if we are pulled over and asked for our driver license, we have to present our CHL. We were not pulled over "solely for open carrying.

But what about someone open carrying in their car under MPA who doesn't have a CHL? Sen. Huffman was pointing out that the gun must be concealed in the car under MPA, but under Amendment 9, officers would not be able to pull a driver over for open carrying in their car to see whether they were legally open carrying with a CHL, or illegally open carrying under MPA/without CHL.