TexasCHLforum.com

v7a wrote:How is the "regular order of business calendar" different from Senate Intent Calendar? Doesn't it need to be on the latter for floor vote?

The Senate almost never follows the regular order of business. Typically, the only time they do is if there is a House bill that the majority wants to pass despite it not having the votes to suspend the regular order of business. In that case, they will--on rare occasions--follow the regular order of business on a House bill day (a Wednesday or Thursday).

They could do that tomorrow if they want to go ahead and hear HB 910 on second reading, but I'd be a little surprised because they'd first have to hear all of the bills listed before it. More than likely, Sen. Estes will put HB 910 on the Senate Intent Calendar (bills to be taken up out of order) for Thursday, and they'll hear it on second reading on Friday.

Is it true that after the Senate votes in favor of HB-910 it has to go back to the House because the Dutton amendment was remove?

Robert91RS wrote:Is it true that after the Senate votes in favor of HB-910 it has to go back to the House because the Dutton amendment was remove?

Both chambers must approve the exact same bill with the exact same language.
The Senate changed the Bill, so, once the Senate approves it (if?), the House must approve what the Senate changed before it can be sent to the Governor.

Committee HB910 Analysis

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

I have yet to see SB11 on the house side??

RoyGBiv wrote:

Robert91RS wrote:Is it true that after the Senate votes in favor of HB-910 it has to go back to the House because the Dutton amendment was remove?

Both chambers must approve the exact same bill with the exact same language.
The Senate changed the Bill, so, once the Senate approves it (if?), the House must approve what the Senate changed before it can be sent to the Governor.

Concurrence vote, yay or nay only.
I believe it has already been stated but they have one whole day dedicated to concurrence issues.

safety1 wrote:I have yet to see SB11 on the house side??

It went thru Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee last week, and was sent to House Calendars Committee 2 days ago.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

v7a wrote:Committee HB910 Analysis

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

I'm glad to see this formalized in the record. Some may argue that by removing the amendment, the legislative intent was to allow LEO to stop and ask for licenses. Having this in the official record refutes that argument and makes it clear that the legislature does not approve of such stops by LEO.

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

Interesting language, but what about game wardens checking for your hunting or fishing license? Isn't that the same thing? I've been asked for my fishing license several times.

Ruark wrote:

The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant, because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum, and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law.

Interesting language, but what about game wardens checking for your hunting or fishing license? Isn't that the same thing? I've been asked for my fishing license several times.

Just because one is not legally obligated to display a license does not mean LEO cannot ask. Has it happened that someone was detained/arrested because they declined to display their hunting/fishing license?

Also, when applying for a TX hunting or fishing license, does one agree to any language that states the license must be displayed upon request?

Years ago, I went to a class on Constitutional issues involving search and seizure. At the end of the class, a Texas Ranger raised his hand. He said “This is all very interesting. How long has this ‘search and seizure’ thing been in effect?”. Game Wardens tend to fall in this category also as they operate in a whole different universe.

joe817 wrote:

safety1 wrote:I have yet to see SB11 on the house side??

It went thru Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee last week, and was sent to House Calendars Committee 2 days ago.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, I knew that much, just haven't seen it on the agenda yet.
Thanks for your reply!

Senate adjourned until 11am Thursday.

safety1 wrote:Senate adjourned until 11am Thursday.

Yet another day to tune in to my favorite reality TV show.

So.............15 pages of house bills to go through, and they knock off at 2:00 today and they will be back at 11:00 tomorrow.

I'm in the wrong business!