TexasCHLforum.com

Oh. Good. Lord.

Where are his pink sneakers?
Someone get him some pronto!

K5GU wrote:Has anyone read Huffine's amendment?

I'd like to but I can't find it!

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:Why would NRA and TSRA be against this amendment?

Show me the basis for this question?

Chas.

Estes said that the TSRA is against it.

When?

Chas.

Aggie_engr wrote:Where are his pink sneakers?
Someone get him some pronto!

Isn't the "Dean" (Whitmire) also supposed to stay on the amendment topic during this discussion. Did Patrick go to sleep?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:Why would NRA and TSRA be against this amendment?

Show me the basis for this question?

Chas.

Estes said that the TSRA is against it.

When?

Chas.

Right after he said the NRA was against it. Might have to wait until the video is archived.

It was stated when read that it is identical to the amendment added/authored by Dutton and Rinaldi:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 910H33.PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 411.2049.
CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

K5GU wrote:Isn't the "Dean" (Whitmire) also supposed to stay on the amendment topic during this discussion. Did Patrick go to sleep?

Maybe when you're the Dean of the senate (~30 years' seniority) you get special latitude?

Is this effectively a filibuster? How long can he hold the floor?

K5GU wrote:Isn't the "Dean" (Whitmire) also supposed to stay on the amendment topic during this discussion. Did Patrick go to sleep?

Should I suspect Huffines and Whitmire rehearsed this - to hold things up?

From the Senate State Affairs Committee 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.

So Senator Whitmire thinks the Senate Committee analysis was wrong? If the Committee analysis is correct then legally it doesn't matter if the amendment is put back in.

If it does matter, then Senator Whitmire is advocating for letting the police violate constitutional rights? Huffines should ask him about that.

Now he's just degraded into personal attacks.

And he goes around and around Predicting Wild West, cops cowering in their cars! Now we are trying to exempt cities from open carry.

And now the people in the big cities will be scared of the guns in the open!

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:Why would NRA and TSRA be against this amendment?

Show me the basis for this question?

Chas.

Estes said that the TSRA is against it.

When?

Chas.

Right after he said the NRA was against it. Might have to wait until the video is archived.

I heard the same... Estes said both NRA and TSRA were against. It would not surprise me to find out that he was uncertain about TSRA but said it anyway. The level of conviction as he said TSRA seemed less than when he claimed NRA was against it.