TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Austin is Austin. Until the locals sober up and change their voting habits, they will continue to lie in the bed they've made. That's their decision.

Problem is, they're not really locals. Austin is overrun with tens of thousands of misplaced Kalifornians, including Police Chief Acevedo. That's where a lot of this hysteria is coming from.

If they live there now, they are locals. It is what it is.

TrueFlog wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

Callaway wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

Nailed it.

I'm not real clear on the law but I think there is case law where LEO's can stop cars for license check without any other probable cause. I'm not supporting this but I guess the comparable thing would be all people carrying. We see it at license (DUI) checkpoints.

I think the Texas case is Lujan vs State

count said "...A brief suspicionless stop at a checkpoint is constitutionally permissible if its primary purpose is to confirm drivers' licences and registration and not general crime control...."

The reason the justices have allowed that is that it's at a checkpoint where everyone is being stopped. That ensures it's not profiling. The courts have been clear that stopping motorists at random is not permissible. So an Open Carry/CHL checkpoint might fly, but not stopping individuals at random.

Callaway wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Saw this article linked on Facebook and found the response to it to be VERY good:

http://kxan.com/2015/04/22/police-assoc ... forcement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yesterday, I was asked by our friend Erin Cargile at KXAN Austin News to comment on the Open Carry Bill and the Amendment that ensures individuals soon to be exercising lawful Open Carry will be able to enjoy the protections from unreasonable search and seizure we are all afforded under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. My comments were fairly straightforward and honestly nothing very earth shattering, but I am always happy to share my insight and opinion. What truly terrified me was a comment made by the Director of CLEAT. He stated, "They (Law Enforcement) might just say, ‘Do you (someone Open Carrying) have a license for your weapon?’ And then you’d say, ‘Yes, I do, and here it is,' And then that’s the end of that." Frankly, that mentality causes me great concern. How anyone that represents such a large Law Enforcement Association can be okay with saying (and apparently believeing) it is okay to stop someone without ANY probable cause, simply to see if MAYBE they are breaking a law, baffles me.

As a freedom loving society, we would be up in arms if someone suggested, "Since so many people drive without a valid drivers license, or without proper insurance, it is acceptable to randomly stop anyone driving a car, simply to verify they are not breaking any laws." and our indignation would be well founded. There MUST be probable cause that a crime is being, or has been, committed before free people are subject to being detained. It is as much a part of our Constitutional Rights, as Freedom of Religion, and Texas has long stood as a State that fervently supports individual freedoms. Our great State has long held that a "sobriety checkpoint" constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure and is a violation of the State's interpretation of the 4th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. The State accepts that while such an effort MAY prevent some drunk driving, the possible public good simply does not outweigh our rights, as free citizens, to move about without being stopped and asked, "Papers please." How many people are killed as a result of drunk driving every year, and yet the State still places greater value on the freedom to move about unmolested. Is the mere possibility that someone might be open carrying a firearm illegally, and some imagined value of prevention of that, worthy of suspension of our rights - however short termed that suspension might be? This has not yet even been signed into law in Texas, and some are already touting the need to ask the public to be okay with forfeiture of their rights.

As a society, we eschew racial profiling, as we intelligently realize the focus should be placed on actions - not the color of the skin. As a society, we should be equally appalled when someone states, "Hey, I realize you are doing something that is 100% legal, but I don't like it and it makes me uncomfortable, so I am going to be okay with suspending your rights until you prove you are not guilty."

Have we truly given up on the concept of innocent until proven otherwise?

-Kent Morrison

Nailed it.

Scott B. wrote:Anybody have a clip of the exchange where the fate of constitutional carry was laid at OCT's feet?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

CrimsonSoul wrote:If this ever passes the only time I'll probably ever oc is when bicycling with the kids down the bike path in town because it would be more comfortable.

I could see being on a road trip and wanting to just clip on a holster to get out and get gas and/or run into the convenience store.

A question. Is a less the perfect conceal just OC? so like if you have a belt holster and an un-tucked shirt over it but when you bend over the tip of the barrel shows or even while you are walking. Is that just OC? Or it's covered but you reach up high and it uncovers.

The only time concealed v. open will be an issue is carrying on a school campus or when crossing a 30.07 sign.

Chas.

CrimsonSoul wrote:If this ever passes the only time I'll probably ever oc is when bicycling with the kids down the bike path in town because it would be more comfortable.

CJD wrote:

PBR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I realize open-carry has not finally passed yet, but today represents the culmination of two years of work by the NRA and TSRA under some of the most difficult circumstances we've faced in years. Thanks to NRA lobbyist Tara Mica and TSRA lobbyist Alice Tripp for a job very well done!

Chas.

So what is left for it to pass, Abbott signing or more?

This bill must now go to the Senate.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Thanks to all involved.



Just for the cherry on top, another OCT member was arrested today for openly wearing a blue gun in a holster when he tried to enter the capitol.

Let me see. My buddy stuck his hand into a hornets' nest and got stung. I think I'll try it and see what happens.

Chas.

PBR wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I realize open-carry has not finally passed yet, but today represents the culmination of two years of work by the NRA and TSRA under some of the most difficult circumstances we've faced in years. Thanks to NRA lobbyist Tara Mica and TSRA lobbyist Alice Tripp for a job very well done!

Chas.

So what is left for it to pass, Abbott signing or more?

Tracker wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:So the amendment to change 30.06 passed, does that by default also change 30.07?

The amendment's author only mentioned 30.06, not open carry. So if HB910 passes with this amendment, 30.06 will still apply to CC, but with a somewhat lesser penalty, and no mention of how it applies to OC.

That's what I gathered. So if I followed that, 30.07 still has the Class A penalty but concealed carry gets the lesser penalty.

I haven't read the amendment but when being questioned he mentioned 30.07 would apply, too

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jerry_r60 wrote:So the amendment to change 30.06 passed, does that by default also change 30.07?

The amendment's author only mentioned 30.06, not open carry. So if HB910 passes with this amendment, 30.06 will still apply to CC, but with a somewhat lesser penalty, and no mention of how it applies to OC.

CrimsonSoul wrote:That amendment makes it look like if they are on the property and are told that a concealed handgun isn't welcome there then they are automatically guilty without being given a chance to leave?

thetexan wrote:How did the amendment change 30.06?