TexasCHLforum.com

I can understand her wanting to get a hot potato bill out of her committee as soon as possible and get it to the floor so everyone can share the heat.

mojo84 wrote:I can understand her wanting to get a hot potato bill out of her committee as soon as possible and get it to the floor so everyone can share the heat.

Also it allows you to spin it many different directions. From being supportive of gun rights, to getting the legislative "circus" out of the way to work on other topics, to being able to maybe get a brief break from the more extreme lobbyists for a month, etc.

I think it was a good decision. With my limited knowledge of the process I would rather have one full day of that craziness and then be able to move on and hopefully have some relative peace and quiet around the capitol for a few weeks instead of people walking into offices demanding action on that bill.

I just think she knew it was going to pass committee along party lines and wanted to get it out of the way.

howdy wrote:I have seen a few (very few) LEO's open carrying while in civilian clothes. They always have a badge showing. Is this required or do they just do it to avoid the hassle and public concern? I would not give the liberal politicians any ideas about the pink sash.

Most agencies require their officers to wear their badge near their gun if they carry openly out of uniform. This isn't a State law.

Chas.

K5GU wrote:While in committee, Senator Zaffirini said she was working on an amendment for "External ID" for open carry folks to wear. I suppose this is to help LEO's, etc., to identify licensed open carry individuals? How would this be enforceable?

Hopefully this kind of silliness doesn't get tacked on.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

howdy wrote:I have seen a few (very few) LEO's open carrying while in civilian clothes. They always have a badge showing. Is this required or do they just do it to avoid the hassle and public concern? I would not give the liberal politicians any ideas about the pink sash.

Most agencies require their officers to wear their badge near their gun if they carry openly out of uniform. This isn't a State law.

Chas.

This. Our dept policy is to show our credentials when open carrying. When I go to training I wear just a t-shirt and 5.11s along with my badge and gun. That's as close to OC in plain cloths I will do. I have never OC off duty.

RoyGBiv wrote:

K5GU wrote:While in committee, Senator Zaffirini said she was working on an amendment for "External ID" for open carry folks to wear. I suppose this is to help LEO's, etc., to identify licensed open carry individuals? How would this be enforceable?

[ Image ]

Hopefully this kind of silliness doesn't get tacked on.

I can't imagine it would; LEOs would hate it and a licensee would be one poorly worded sentence away from being charged with impersonating a peace officer.

As Keith said, the Zaffirini amendments will be designed to kill the Bill, as will Ellis'.

Chas.

Yes the ID and retention requirements need to go away, no doubt. If the external ID requirement survives, I expect law enforcement to oppose anything that looks like a badge, but there are not a lot of great options for how to do this that don't rapidly cross into ridiculous. So expect anti-OC legislators who think they can't derail OC entirely will push to have as many onerous and/or ridiculous amendments added as possible -- for the children or the cops or whatever.

The retention requirement is a bag of worms as well, so again I expect to see it pushed by anti-OC legislators...again for safety...just like the excessive training requirements, notifying peace officers of CHL status if carrying, etc were added to the original CC law.

And of course, an ID and a retention requirement will work against the progress made in the past to remove legal problems for CC carriers who inadvertently unconceal. It may still not be a crime to unintentionally display your CC handgun...but it will be a crime to OC without the right external ID or holster. And who will decide whether it was a CCer whose t-shirt pulled up, or an illegal OCer? A question for the jury, your honor!

To be absolutely fair, I don't think OC is common enough, despite all the hoopla about it, to have actually established a dataset worthy of telling us whether gun-snatches and/or targeting of open carriers is or will be a problem. I for one think it a poor security strategy to open carry in general when I am not attired as a cop, security officer, or soldier, but there are times when it would be helpful, but not if I have to wear a tiara or have a certain kind of holster.

Charles,

In senate debate, is there a cutoff point after which no new amendments can be submitted, so that there is enough time to review, debate, and accept or discard each amendment before the bill goes for a final vote?

ELB wrote:Yes the ID and retention requirements need to go away, no doubt.

...as well as the amendment giving LEOs free rein to stop and detain open carriers at any time, any place to check their CHLs.

I wonder what other goofball amendments they're going to try to sneak in there....

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, In senate debate, is there a cutoff point after which no new amendments can be submitted, so that there is enough time to review, debate, and accept or discard each amendment before the bill goes for a final vote?

A very good and valid question TAM. I was going to ask that very thing.

Ruark wrote: I wonder what other goofball amendments they're going to try to sneak in there....

I wonder the same Ruark. Does anyone know where we can read allllllllll the amendements?

To be absolutely fair, I don't think OC is common enough, despite all the hoopla about it, to have actually established a dataset worthy of telling us whether gun-snatches and/or targeting of open carriers is or will be a problem.

Maybe not in Texas, but I think open carry has been legal in Arizona since it became a state. Arizona was admitted to the Union in 1912.

Interesting to consider Arizona and New Mexico joined the Union in the 1900's, but that wasn't the end of it. My parents put three candles on my birthday cake before there were 50 stars on the flag, and there are plenty of folks who can remember pledging allegiance to 48 star flags.

joe817 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles, In senate debate, is there a cutoff point after which no new amendments can be submitted, so that there is enough time to review, debate, and accept or discard each amendment before the bill goes for a final vote?

A very good and valid question TAM. I was going to ask that very thing.

Ruark wrote: I wonder what other goofball amendments they're going to try to sneak in there....

I wonder the same Ruark. Does anyone know where we can read allllllllll the amendements?

I don't believe they're available until they're actually presented as an amendment. Right now they're being crafted by people or people say they have an amendment, but it hasn't actually been presented as a proposed amendment. I seem to remember a long process on the floor when amendments were being presented and voted on one-by-one from last session.

joelamosobadiah wrote: I don't believe they're available until they're actually presented as an amendment. Right now they're being crafted by people or people say they have an amendment, but it hasn't actually been presented as a proposed amendment. I seem to remember a long process on the floor when amendments were being presented and voted on one-by-one from last session.

Thanks!

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles,

In senate debate, is there a cutoff point after which no new amendments can be submitted, so that there is enough time to review, debate, and accept or discard each amendment before the bill goes for a final vote?

I'm not sure of the process, but I do recall watching floor debates where a Representative moved to close amendments and call the question. That was a good while back and in the House, not the Senate.

Chas.