TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Who was the representative that that asked Rep. Phillips at the end of the day of the second reading if he would help fix the open carry law IF in a couple years the data suggested that it was a mistake and blood started running in the streets (my words here)? I believe he was the last one to address Phillips from the back microphone.

I really want to ask him if open carry proves to be a positive and blood does not run in the streets as he and some others want us to believe will happen, if he will help Phillips and the other pro gun rights folks to remove additional gun restrictions.

That would be Rep Dutton(sp?) that introduced the amendment that would prohibit LEOs from stopping someone just for open carrying.

Amen. Although I would apply that retroactively to 1995.

[quote's="mojo84"]Who was the representative that that asked Rep. Phillips at the end of the day of the second reading if he would help fix the open carry law IF in a couple years the data suggested that it was a mistake and blood started running in the streets (my words here)? I believe he was the last one to address Phillips from the back microphone.

I really want to ask him if open carry proves to be a positive and blood does not run in the streets as he and some others want us to believe will happen, if he will help Phillips and the other pro gun rights folks to remove additional gun restrictions.[/quote]

The Wall wrote:That title makes it sound like that was the only reason for the amendment.

It was, according to Dutton (the amendment's author):

Amendment once again raises specter of ‘constitutional carry’ in Legislature’s open carry debate

Some have suggested that the amendment could, in effect, allow for the unlicensed open carry of handguns. That’s because someone open carrying without a license – illegally – wouldn’t need to fear police questioning if they were otherwise doing no wrong.

Dutton said on Tuesday that his intent had nothing to do with unlicensed open carry – but instead with safeguarding against racial profiling.

“If you see black guys with open carry, I didn’t want them stopped because they happened to be black guys exercising their right to open carry,” said Dutton, who voted against the overall open carry bill. “That was my concern.”

v7a wrote:

The Wall wrote:That title makes it sound like that was the only reason for the amendment.

It was, according to Dutton (the amendment's author):

Amendment once again raises specter of ‘constitutional carry’ in Legislature’s open carry debate

Some have suggested that the amendment could, in effect, allow for the unlicensed open carry of handguns. That’s because someone open carrying without a license – illegally – wouldn’t need to fear police questioning if they were otherwise doing no wrong.

Dutton said on Tuesday that his intent had nothing to do with unlicensed open carry – but instead with safeguarding against racial profiling.

“If you see black guys with open carry, I didn’t want them stopped because they happened to be black guys exercising their right to open carry,” said Dutton, who voted against the overall open carry bill. “That was my concern.”

I don't read Dutton's comments to mean it's intended to make it "constitutional"carry. Seems to me like he is saying he didn't want minorities to be harassed just because they are wearing a gun openly.

I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:

The Wall wrote:That title makes it sound like that was the only reason for the amendment.

It was, according to Dutton (the amendment's author):

Amendment once again raises specter of ‘constitutional carry’ in Legislature’s open carry debate

Some have suggested that the amendment could, in effect, allow for the unlicensed open carry of handguns. That’s because someone open carrying without a license – illegally – wouldn’t need to fear police questioning if they were otherwise doing no wrong.

Dutton said on Tuesday that his intent had nothing to do with unlicensed open carry – but instead with safeguarding against racial profiling.

“If you see black guys with open carry, I didn’t want them stopped because they happened to be black guys exercising their right to open carry,” said Dutton, who voted against the overall open carry bill. “That was my concern.”

I don't read Dutton's comments to mean it's intended to over "constitutional"carry. Seems to me like he is saying he didn't want minorities to be harassed just because they are wearing a gun openly.

I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

I'm more worried about real bad guys carrying concealed than I think I'll ever be about anyone carrying openly.
People are just making hay.

mojo84 wrote:I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

Yes, it benefits everyone. But Dutton's concern was specifically racial profiling (so the title of the newspaper article in question was in fact correct).

TexasCajun wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Who was the representative that that asked Rep. Phillips at the end of the day of the second reading if he would help fix the open carry law IF in a couple years the data suggested that it was a mistake and blood started running in the streets (my words here)? I believe he was the last one to address Phillips from the back microphone.

I really want to ask him if open carry proves to be a positive and blood does not run in the streets as he and some others want us to believe will happen, if he will help Phillips and the other pro gun rights folks to remove additional gun restrictions.

That would be Rep Dutton(sp?) that introduced the amendment that would prohibit LEOs from stopping someone just for open carrying.

Thanks!

RoyGBiv wrote:I'm more worried about real bad guys carrying concealed than I think I'll ever be about anyone carrying openly.
People are just making hay.

That's a nice way to say it.

v7a wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

Yes, it benefits everyone. But Dutton's concern was specifically racial profiling (so the title of the newspaper article in question was in fact correct).

I'm confused because you posted the link to this article and it discusses "constitutional" carry?

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... bate.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No biggie. Just trying to follow the conversation while getting some work done. Guess I'm not up to both tasks at once.

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I see it as benefiting everyone that chooses to open carry and not just minorities. It's a good thing.

Yes, it benefits everyone. But Dutton's concern was specifically racial profiling (so the title of the newspaper article in question was in fact correct).

I'm lost. Why did you post the link to this article then?

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... bate.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Because that article (unlike the original one) actually contained a quote from Dutton that confirmed what his intent was (to prevent racial profiling).

From the previous thread page:

v7a wrote:Open carry bill passed with amendment to discourage racial profiling

The Wall wrote:That title makes it sound like that was the only reason for the amendment. I'm not sure that's the case. It's just one of many good reasons to have it in the bill.

While the effect of the amendment is certainly wider than just preventing racial profiling, the only reason provided by the amendment's author was to prevent racial profiling.

Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

That thought struck me earlier too. His rant is proof of why the amendment was needed. Austin PD was apparently planning on stopping and questioning anyone open carrying in Austin.

v7a wrote:

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

That thought struck me earlier too. His rant is proof of why the amendment was needed. Austin PD was apparently planning on stopping and questioning anyone open carrying in Austin.

And, undoubtedly, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Probably El Paso, maybe Fort Worth and Arlington too.

Now they will have to make up some junk to be able to question an OCer. Enough complaints and it will stop.

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

To me, the likelihood of regular & ongoing 'your papers, please' stops was my biggest concern about the initial (licensed) open carry bill. This amendment is great, and ditto on the big city police chief's concern validating the worth of it!

v7a wrote:

thechl wrote:Isn't the implication of Acevedo's rant that he fully intends for his officers to stop and check any/all open carriers to ensure they have a CHL? Sounds like harassment to me.

So while I didn't feel the need for Dutton's amendment when it was proposed, Acevedo has convinced me of its worth!

That thought struck me earlier too. His rant is proof of why the amendment was needed. Austin PD was apparently planning on stopping and questioning anyone open carrying in Austin.

My comment to him about applying the same "logic" to operators of motor vehicles and just stopping all of them to see if they are licensed because the KKK, Panthers, etc, etc, might be driving around our community and endangering us, was deleted.