TexasCHLforum.com

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

It's kind of crazy, folks that usually get elected have to have tremendous egos. Those same egos can get in the way of doing the right thing. Can be pretty frustrating.

We CHLers are the ambassadors for the good guys carrying. It was only friends who knew you are carrying. If you OC your BBQ gun, everyone will be
So behave appropriately. I can see my self OC and from the range or while dressed up for BBQ party, etc...

K5GU wrote: Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene? Public is "alarmed", etc.?

This approach came up on a YouTube video where a guy was carrying his AR around his neighborhood and half a dozen people called the police about a MWAG. They came to the house and of course he started jabbering about the 2nd Amendment. The LEO said the focus wasn't on the 2nd, it was on people being alarmed. Seems like the same logic could be applied to OC under certain circumstances. For example:

It is perfectly legal to carry a baseball bat. It is perfectly legal to walk around in a Speedo. It is perfectly legal to wear scuba flippers.

Now, suppose you walked through an upscale mall in a Speedo and scuba flippers, carrying a baseball bat? Nobody can make a peep, right? You're not doing anything illegal. But of course, it wouldn't work like that. Somebody would call the police, and you'd be hauled off for something like creating a public disturbance, or some similar charge. Or, at the very least, you'd be made to leave the premises, not because of what you were doing, but because of the public alarm you created.

Could the same apply to open carry?

Ruark wrote:

K5GU wrote: Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene? Public is "alarmed", etc.?

This approach came up on a YouTube video where a guy was carrying his AR around his neighborhood and half a dozen people called the police about a MWAG. They came to the house and of course he started jabbering about the 2nd Amendment. The LEO said the focus wasn't on the 2nd, it was on people being alarmed. Seems like the same logic could be applied to OC under certain circumstances. For example:

It is perfectly legal to carry a baseball bat. It is perfectly legal to walk around in a Speedo. It is perfectly legal to wear scuba flippers.

Now, suppose you walked through an upscale mall in a Speedo and scuba flippers, carrying a baseball bat? Nobody can make a peep, right? You're not doing anything illegal. But of course, it wouldn't work like that. Somebody would call the police, and you'd be hauled off for something like creating a public disturbance, or some similar charge. Or, at the very least, you'd be made to leave the premises, not because of what you were doing, but because of the public alarm you created.

Could the same apply to open carry?

In this day and age nearly everything you do is going to either alarm, offend, or upset someone somewhere.

We need to get back to people minding their own business. Yes, I can dream.

Ruark wrote:

K5GU wrote: Can't the LEO still use "reasonable suspicion" if he is dispatched to a 9-1-1 MWAG scene? Public is "alarmed", etc.?

This approach came up on a YouTube video where a guy was carrying his AR around his neighborhood and half a dozen people called the police about a MWAG. They came to the house and of course he started jabbering about the 2nd Amendment. The LEO said the focus wasn't on the 2nd, it was on people being alarmed. Seems like the same logic could be applied to OC under certain circumstances. For example:

It is perfectly legal to carry a baseball bat. It is perfectly legal to walk around in a Speedo. It is perfectly legal to wear scuba flippers.

Now, suppose you walked through an upscale mall in a Speedo and scuba flippers, carrying a baseball bat? Nobody can make a peep, right? You're not doing anything illegal. But of course, it wouldn't work like that. Somebody would call the police, and you'd be hauled off for something like creating a public disturbance, or some similar charge. Or, at the very least, you'd be made to leave the premises, not because of what you were doing, but because of the public alarm you created.

Could the same apply to open carry?

I suppose if the mall was privately owned someone with authority could take action based on their policies even though no state law is being violated. But when OC becomes Texas law, it will still be unlawful to openly carry a modern handgun in public unless licensed. My fear is that when OC becomes law, there will be some extreme licensed OC exhibitionists doing their rooster struts in public just to get a video when the authorities approach them.

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

It's kind of crazy, folks that usually get elected have to have tremendous egos. Those same egos can get in the way of doing the right thing. Can be pretty frustrating.

Ramsey's comments in that article were "all over the place". I did not get what his point was, other than politicians can agree or disagree with each other. Regarding the open carry bills, except for some floor amendments, HB 910 and SB 17 are just about identical. I doubt when HB 910 hits the Senate floor that it will receive many more new amendments and if it does, the bill will go to Conference, just like the original SB 60 CHL bill did in 1995.

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

It's kind of crazy, folks that usually get elected have to have tremendous egos. Those same egos can get in the way of doing the right thing. Can be pretty frustrating.

Ramsey's comments in that article were "all over the place". I did not get what his point was, other than politicians can agree or disagree with each other. Regarding the open carry bills, except for some floor amendments, HB 910 and SB 17 are just about identical. I doubt when HB 910 hits the Senate floor that it will receive many more new amendments and if it does, the bill will go to Conference, just like the original SB 60 CHL bill did in 1995.

Yeah, I'm not going to worry about this particular bill unless Charles tells me to worry. However, I was speaking in more general terms about their egos.

mojo84 wrote:

K5GU wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

v7a wrote:Analysis: Legislative Dance Partners, Stepping on Toes

Read what the Senate did as you choose: They either fumbled a major piece of legislation that’s on the governor’s hot list and slowed it down, or they offered a bit of retaliation for the House’s disregard of the Senate’s open carry bill.

Maybe you saw some of the heated reaction from state Rep. Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, directed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate?

“Had they chosen to do what historically happens and pass the House bill over with their changes, we could be quickly moving to a conference committee and getting this bill on the governor’s desk much sooner rather than later,” Bonnen said.

He might have said the same about the House and handguns.

It's kind of crazy, folks that usually get elected have to have tremendous egos. Those same egos can get in the way of doing the right thing. Can be pretty frustrating.

Ramsey's comments in that article were "all over the place". I did not get what his point was, other than politicians can agree or disagree with each other. Regarding the open carry bills, except for some floor amendments, HB 910 and SB 17 are just about identical. I doubt when HB 910 hits the Senate floor that it will receive many more new amendments and if it does, the bill will go to Conference, just like the original SB 60 CHL bill did in 1995.

Yeah, I'm not going to worry about this particular bill unless Charles tells me to worry. However, I was speaking in more general terms about their egos.

RIght! Sometimes I think their real EGO competitions are determined by how many RESOLUTIONS they can introduce and get credit for.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K5GU wrote: Regarding the "Dutton" amendment, something's not adding up here. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Dutton amendment amends Chapter 411 Sub H (Licensed Carry). How would that be applicable to someone seen openly carrying a handgun in public if at that point in time it's not known whether the person is licensed or not? Looks to me like unless PC 46.02 gets amended, that will not change. This is addressing the argument on peace officers asking to see a license, ID, etc.

If HB910 passes with the Dutton amendment intact, then it would constitute a statutory provision that merely wearing a handgun is not reasonable suspicion to stop and interview or detain a person. A LEO would have to have something else. Candidly, it won't take a lot more, but carrying a gun alone will not be sufficient.

The Star-Telegram article commented that the amendment would possibly allow a child to carry a handgun. While the statement was absurd, it does provide a good example of the "something more" that would provide reasonable suspicion to interview a person. Since one must be 21 years old to get a CHL (absent the military exception), if a 14 year old kid is wearing a handgun, then the officer would have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime was being committed, i.e. UCW. Thus, the officer could interview the subject. PLEASE, don't talk about people who look young for their age. If they look that young, then they should be flattered that the officer would want to see their CHL.

Chas.

I can envision lots of MWAG calls, including ones manufactured just for the circumstance.

jimlongley wrote:
I can envision lots of MWAG calls, including ones manufactured just for the circumstance.

That seems to be the typical reason given in the videos where people open carrying are stopped. I'm sure there are calls from time to time but it seems that is always the reason given and that seems odd. I find it hard to believe that people would dial 911 over a holstered firearm especially when most people don't even have the attention span to notice whats on your hip. It bothers me slightly that we even have to consider an amendment to keep police from harassing those who're doing what is legally permissible never-mind doing it in a gun friendly state like ours.

I could be wrong, but I don't think people will get nearly as worked up over someone OCing a handgun as they would someone OCing an AR.

The dispatcher would ask describe what the MWAG is doing? if the caller said, I am afraid, then the dispatcher would say seeing an OC is not reason to call police for that sole purpose. I am sorry for your feelings.

I hope it doesn't happen this way, but I suspect when OC becomes law there will be 9-1-1 callers in cahoots with the actors open carrying so they can get on the news, YooToob, etc. to make their obstructive anti OC points.

Are there any "malicious 911 calls" laws on the books in Texas?

In my little town there are unlawful 30.06 signs on virtually all the municipal buildings. When I told a police officer about preemption of state law he assured me the signs were allowed 'to afford public safety.' So my suspicion is 30.07 signs will soon join the force. Unless, of course, SB 273/HB 226 get passed, including an amendment to cover 30.07. Indeed, I suspect those bills are being held in anticipation of the need for the 30.07 amendment.

Open Carry will be interesting for a while, throughout Texas, in cities big and small.

jmra wrote:I could be wrong, but I don't think people will get nearly as worked up over someone OCing a handgun as they would someone OCing an AR.

I agree.