TexasCHLforum.com

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...

A Texas Tribune article from earlier this afternoon stated that Huffman and other Republicans "viewed the amendment as back door effort to repeal handgun licensing requirements altogether." I think that's her bigger concern.

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...

I don't want them to have this ability. Imagine how many times someone would get pulled over solely for open carrying.

timtheteacher wrote:The bill is going to pass with or without the amendment. Those 20 Senators will not screw it up just because they don't like what is attached to it. Just my thoughts...

Yep. I think it's all posturing at this point.

CJD wrote:

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...

I don't want them to have this ability. Imagine how many times someone would get pulled over solely for open carrying.

Nor do I - I wasn't arguing for it, just trying to clarify what Huffman was saying about how Huffine's amendment would affect current laws, and the fact that he was totally unaware of that.

So...Huffman is going to raise the punishment for unlicensed carry of any kind.

Thoughts on this?

Jasonw560 wrote:

timtheteacher wrote:The bill is going to pass with or without the amendment. Those 20 Senators will not screw it up just because they don't like what is attached to it. Just my thoughts...

Yep. I think it's all posturing at this point.

But wait...there is an amendment to the amendment..

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

That's fair. I'd expect her to fight for her convictions. Guess you would also have to admire Huffines for fighting for his conviction?

I expect him to fight for his convictions, same as Huffman. The difference is this, she's as sharp as a tack, and his lights are on but nobody's home. I don't admire her point, I admire her effectiveness at driving it home, while he sounds like a mumbling bumbling idiot. I admire what he is doing less, because he is doing an extremely poor job of defending his amendment.

But that's not all.......

He IS doing a very good job of delaying the passage of a good bill, which threatens said passage, and if this bill goes down because of his obstinate insistence on defending his bill with a poorly prepared defense, then I'll not forgive him for screwing all of us.

Follow me for a minute...... What he is doing is the equivalent of insisting on "comprehensive carry reform", when it would be far more effective to get the existing bill passed, and then amend the law down the road. We have examples of this very thing in the existing law. It used to be a requirement to show both TDL and CHL to an LEO when asked for ID while carrying, punishable by possible revocation of your CHL for failure to show the CHL. That has changed. As the law currently stands, the requirement is still there, but there are no consequences for failure to comply.

That is ALL that needs to happen here. GET THIS BILL PASSED........AS IS....... and then later, down the road, amend the law with something like the Huffines amendment. What really pisses me off about him is that he is putting it ALL at risk, over something that he is woefully UNPREPARED to defend. If he screws this up and BH 910 does not pass because of his delays, it's not HIM that will pay the price, it is all CHL holders who thought they might want to open carry once in a while.

That is unpardonably stupid. So no, I guess I don't really admire what he's doing.

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

Thoughts on this?

I doubt it will pass, but if it does it will be as a tool to make amendment 9 fail.

Sorry for the question, but can anyone post the link to the video feed. My history clears after 3 days and it's been longer than that since I've watched or read the hb910 thread.

If we lose HB910, then the House will not pass SB11. So this arrogant garbage is risking both open-carry and campus-carry.

Chas.

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...

A Texas Tribune article from earlier this afternoon stated that Huffman and other Republicans "viewed the amendment as back door effort to repeal handgun licensing requirements altogether." I think that's her bigger concern.

That's exactly the way I see it too. (See red highlighted text above.)

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TXBO wrote:

txglock21 wrote:Why won't they just vote the amendment down if everyone is opposed to it? I think they all just want to humiliate Huffines.

This is simply a moderate fighting a conservative position. She's against the amendment, knows it has a good chance to pass and has her feelings hurt.

I don't think emotion has a thing to do with it. I think she is against it, based on her set of principles, and she is doing her level best to defeat it, based on her principles. This would be a good example of principled opposition that I don't agree with, but have to admire the job she is doing in dismantling Huffines.

That's fair. I'd expect her to fight for her convictions. Guess you would also have to admire Huffines for fighting for his conviction?

I expect him to fight for his convictions, same as Huffman. The difference is this, she's as sharp as a tack, and his lights are on but nobody's home. I don't admire her point, I admire her effectiveness at driving it home, while he sounds like a mumbling bumbling idiot. I admire what he is doing less, because he is doing an extremely poor job of defending his amendment.

But that's not all.......

He IS doing a very good job of delaying the passage of a good bill, which threatens said passage, and if this bill goes down because of his obstinate insistence on defending his bill with a poorly prepared defense, then I'll not forgive him for screwing all of us.

Follow me for a minute...... What he is doing is the equivalent of insisting on "comprehensive carry reform", when it would be far more effective to get the existing bill passed, and then amend the law down the road. We have examples of this very thing in the existing law. It used to be a requirement to show both TDL and CHL to an LEO when asked for ID while carrying, punishable by possible revocation of your CHL for failure to show the CHL. That has changed. As the law currently stands, the requirement is still there, but there are no consequences for failure to comply.

That is ALL that needs to happen here. GET THIS BILL PASSED........AS IS....... and then later, down the road, amend the law with something like the Huffines amendment. What really pisses me off about him is that he is putting it ALL at risk, over something that he is woefully UNPREPARED to defend. If he screws this up and BH 910 does not pass because of his delays, it's not HIM that will pay the price, it is all CHL holders who thought they might want to open carry once in a while.

That is unpardonably stupid. So no, I guess I don't really admire what he's doing.

Very well said, TAM.

I'm not going to post the quotes, but I agree 100% with TAM and Mr. Cotton.