SB11 & HB910 This week....

[poppo]

With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

I think that argument was full of holes. If they went through the metal detector, setting it off would be grounds to ask to see it just as if you were conceal carrying. If they went through the CHL line without swiping, that would also be grounds to ask. Isn't the CHL line ONLY for CHL holders? If so, not swiping would be grounds to at a minimum ask you to go through the detector line where you are back to setting off the detector.

[K5GU]

With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through.

I think that argument was full of holes. If they went through the metal detector, setting it off would be grounds to ask to see it just as if you were conceal carrying. If they went through the CHL line without swiping, that would also be grounds to ask. Isn't the CHL line ONLY for CHL holders? If so, not swiping would be grounds to at a minimum ask you to go through the detector line where you are back to setting off the detector.

That's similar to what I was thinking. I've never been there so I don't know what their security procedures are, but it seems apparent to me that someone could not get through entry without any of the 6 or so DPS agents there noticing. It seems like to me a security admin. issue rather than a legal one.

[TVGuy]

I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.

Codifying the law makes it a legal problem. I'm not saying whether it would hold water or not, but I believe there is enough grey area in the interpretation that it would at the very least lead to some court battles. They were not willing to risk that.

[K5GU]

I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.

Codifying the law makes it a legal problem. I'm not saying whether it would hold water or not, but I believe there is enough grey area in the interpretation that it would at the very least lead to some court battles. They were not willing to risk that.

I give up! Back on topic ?

[Scott Farkus]

I've not been there to see what procedures they use so if you have you're a step up. I thought I heard someone say in the hearings that CHL holders scanned a card or something? How someone openly carrying might circumvent those procedures are above my pay grade. If a person openly carrying (or carrying hidden) and didn't follow the rules on entry, wouldn't that trigger enough suspicion that they could ask to see the CHL? It sounds like more of a security administration issue than a legal one.

It was a monumentally stupid question. You either go through the metal detector line or you go through the CHL line (the card they swipe is your actual license). I have no idea why a CHL holder openly carrying would want to go through the metal detector, but yes, if they did I would think DPS would have more than sufficient grounds to ask to see the CHL, and then direct that person to the CHL line if they have one (and arrest him or her if they don't). You have to show it anyway to go through the CHL line.

Utterly pointless line of inquiry that did nothing but waste time, cause confusion and provide fodder for the other side.

[Scott Farkus]

There's lots of head shaking to go around, but, IMO the single biggest facepalm goes to Senator Huffines for failing to Amend HB 910 to be EXACTLY, word-for-word, punctuation-for-punctuation, the same as the version received from the House. Major fail.

Hopefully it can still be salvaged.

I've read in other places that even if Huffines had added back the amendment word for word, the bill would have still had to go back to the House for concurrence because it had been altered in committee (i.e. when Huffman took it out before sending it to the floor) and therefore at that point was no longer an "identical" bill regardless of what happened from then on.

I don't know if that's true or not but if it is, it would make Huffine's error in language - if in fact that was an error - a moot point I guess.

[JollyHappyDad]

"With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through."

No. 1) Can't carry a handgun legally w/o a CHL. 2) Can't enter the capital with a handgun unless you have a CHL. 3) To enter with a handgun you have to enter thru the correct line & prove CHL. If you attempt to enter thru the detectors with a gun, concealed or not, you're gonna have to prove you are just stupid not a criminal. A gun in a metal detector at a high risk target, is a reasonable cause to ask for proof (and if up to me reason to deny entry), the status of OC or the amendment doesn't affect the rules of entry. The point is there are only to ways for the public to legally enter, if you are trying to bypass those even without a gun, you can reasonably expect to be asked all kinds of questions.

[TVGuy]

"With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through."

No. 1) Can't carry a handgun legally w/o a CHL. 2) Can't enter the capital with a handgun unless you have a CHL. 3) To enter with a handgun you have to enter thru the correct line & prove CHL. If you attempt to enter thru the detectors with a gun, concealed or not, you're gonna have to prove you are just stupid not a criminal. A gun in a metal detector at a high risk target, is a reasonable cause to ask for proof (and if up to me reason to deny entry), the status of OC or the amendment doesn't affect the rules of entry.

I'll repeat, that was their concern. It was asked multiple times and neither Phillips, nor Estes did a great job of dispelling other legislators fears over problems arising from this.

I don't agree with the assertion, but I also strongly disagree that it is as easy as some of you are making it, especially as quoted above.

[Robert91RS]

There's lots of head shaking to go around, but, IMO the single biggest facepalm goes to Senator Huffines for failing to Amend HB 910 to be EXACTLY, word-for-word, punctuation-for-punctuation, the same as the version received from the House. Major fail.

Hopefully it can still be salvaged.

I've read in other places that even if Huffines had added back the amendment word for word, the bill would have still had to go back to the House for concurrence because it had been altered in committee (i.e. when Huffman took it out before sending it to the floor) and therefore at that point was no longer an "identical" bill regardless of what happened from then on.

I don't know if that's true or not but if it is, it would make Huffine's error in language - if in fact that was an error - a moot point I guess.

^This

Have we heard from one of our local experts that the bill would have gone straight to Abbott with identical wording or is that just a rumor? I thought it had to return to the house for concurrence the moment the senate committee removed the Dutton amendment, which I understand they had to do to secure the votes. I watched and heard Huffines say the wording was identical to Duttons, and I watched senator Estes try to convince Huffines to withdraw it so I'm convinced he knew the firestorm was coming.

[JollyHappyDad]

"With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through."

No. 1) Can't carry a handgun legally w/o a CHL. 2) Can't enter the capital with a handgun unless you have a CHL. 3) To enter with a handgun you have to enter thru the correct line & prove CHL. If you attempt to enter thru the detectors with a gun, concealed or not, you're gonna have to prove you are just stupid not a criminal. A gun in a metal detector at a high risk target, is a reasonable cause to ask for proof (and if up to me reason to deny entry), the status of OC or the amendment doesn't affect the rules of entry.

I'll repeat, that was their concern. It was asked multiple times and neither Phillips, nor Estes did a great job of dispelling other legislators fears over problems arising from this.

I don't agree with the assertion, but I also strongly disagree that it is as easy as some of you are making it, especially as quoted above.

That's an understatement, it was as if none of them had ever been in the front door of the place; any reasonable person would not conclude that an OC could just stroll right in. The argument was smoke, and Huffines dismissed it maybe because he thought it was ridiculous (it was) which goes back to an earlier discussion of what went wrong - nobody took the opposition seriously.

[Tracker]

"With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through."

No. 1) Can't carry a handgun legally w/o a CHL. 2) Can't enter the capital with a handgun unless you have a CHL. 3) To enter with a handgun you have to enter thru the correct line & prove CHL. If you attempt to enter thru the detectors with a gun, concealed or not, you're gonna have to prove you are just stupid not a criminal. A gun in a metal detector at a high risk target, is a reasonable cause to ask for proof (and if up to me reason to deny entry), the status of OC or the amendment doesn't affect the rules of entry. The point is there are only to ways for the public to legally enter, if you are trying to bypass those even without a gun, you can reasonably expect to be asked all kinds of questions.

yep. in short, trying to enter OC through the metal detector instead of the designated CHL line is enough probable cause to suspect you don't have a CHL.

[ScooterSissy]

....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

I agree with one small caveat - I don't think the will of the the few thousand law enforcement officers and officials should have been held in higher regard than that of 800,000+ CHL holders.

[K5GU]

Watching the House floor..they have chopped up the calendar quite a bit, skipping around, suspending "eligible times", etc., to the point it's hard to say when a particular bill will come to the floor.

[v7a]

Looks like there won't be any action in the Senate today on HB910.

@scottbraddock tweet

Expecting the Texas Senate to wrap up for the day around 6:30 #TxLege

Does anyone know if the House is planning on wrapping up before 7:40pm today?