SB11 & HB910 This week....

[Charles L. Cotton]

PBS running a story that it will be OK for police to stop and check your CHL.
That taking out the amendments was done so they could check .
I don't think that is in the bill. AM I wrong..?
I know PBS doesn't believe in the Constitution.

It is not in the bill and would be a violation of the constitution and open up law enforcement to civil liabilities. On the bright side, many recorded instances of such violations should result in legislative action in 2017.

Lay the foundation, then build the house.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . The SB273 statute allows a time period to remove signage after reporting to the AG and usually the shows are over before that time is up.

There's a legal remedy for that and the doctrine is called "capable of repetition, but avoiding renew." It for precisely this type of repetitive violation of the law, interrupted by periods of compliance.

Chas.

[nlyric]

I have an honest question regarding reasonable articulable suspicion.
Carrying a handgun is illigal in Tx according to the Tx constitution. I believe this still applies to something like 97% of Texans. I'm no lawyer but I could very easily articulate the possibility, or even probability of a crime being committed by the mere sight of someone open carrying a handgun, and how that reasonably raises suspicion of a crime..
So how is that protected by case law taking into consideration the Tx constitution, and the fact that what, maybe 3% are exempt from such law...?
I have a feeling that I may stand to be corrected here, but that is why I asked.

[jmra]

I have an honest question regarding reasonable articulable suspicion.
Carrying a handgun is illigal in Tx according to the Tx constitution. I believe this still applies to something like 97% of Texans. I'm no lawyer but I could very easily articulate the possibility, or even probability of a crime being committed by the mere sight of someone open carrying a handgun, and how that reasonably raises suspicion of a crime..
So how is that protected by case law taking into consideration the Tx constitution, and the fact that what, maybe 3% are exempt from such law...?
I have a feeling that I may stand to be corrected here, but that is why I asked.

It was mentioned several times in debate that there is case law that the requirement of a license does not constitute RS to verify the license.

[nobius]

Time to move on to items eligible. SB 11 is third on the list.

Stream: http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[nobius]

SB 20 is up. Next is HB 3123. Then SB 11.

[nobius]

HB 3123 now up.

[Ruark]

Sen. Isaacs introducing his Lacrosse team. (rolls eyes)

[MAFWG]

I wonder if she had to audition for the job of speedreader?

[CrimsonSoul]

Here we go!

[Ruark]

OK, it's on.

[MAFWG]

SB11 is now up.

[NotRPB]

@chucklindell 1m1 minute ago

House not taking up campus carry SB11, approved yesterday by Senate. #txlege

going out of bounds by House Resolution adopted
===============

.line forming to speak on #SB11 (#campuscarry). Three #Democrats lined up now.

[CrimsonSoul]

This guy still thinks that hospitals are off limits without a 30.06 lol

[tlt]

The strategy of putting in front of other business was a good one.