Open Carry, TX. style

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm glad someone pointed out why this has an "odd" effective date (most Bills in Texas go into effect on 1 September after the Governor's signature).

I imagine that the CHL instructors will be very keen to find out what changes will actually take place. From my read of HB910, CHL holders will gain Open Carry as well (HB910 pretty much just strikes the word "concealed" from where ever it occurs in Texas' Codes(.

But, as written, DPS is going to have to decide is present CHL holders get OC on 1 January or not. They will need to propound policy for OC for non-licensees (and what to call them--HL, THL, LC, whatever).

We will probably need those extra four months' time to sort out the shenanigans the 5 large metro areas will get up to despite the lack of a "local control" amendment.

We will also need some concerned opinion on whether existing "30.06" signage may just be edited, or that separate "30.07" signage will be required.

This is a step, a small but significant step, in the right direction.
 
I would like to thank Mr. Roberts for the running commentary. I was not able to listen but read every line of his postings on the thread. I really appreciate you documenting the history of this vote!

:)
 
You're all welcome. Thanks to those of you who took time out of your day to contact your Reps and help push this through.

Today is the third reading of HB910 in the House for those who are interested. It should be very straightforward and non-dramatic. After this, HB910 goes back to the Senate for a concurring vote on the amendment the House added. We really want it to pass that concurring vote.

The same link posted earlier will work for those who want to watch.
 
Today's action: They can (and did) attempt to amend on the third reading of the bill in the House with a 2/3 majority. Two amendments passed this time - one making the language on the 30.06 change more clear and the Dutton Amendment making it clear that open carry by itself is not PC for law enforcement to stop. With these two amendments, HB 910 passed with 101 ayes. It goes to the Senate for a concurring vote next
 
I kind of got the impression that Phillips was moving to table all of the amendments on Friday so the bill wouldn't have to go back through the senate? Would it be true to state that now that the bills is going back anyways, they added the more common sensical amendments? I'm total in favor of all the amendments that got accepted.
 
After all the intra-party political maneuvering, I am wondering if there are going to be any surprises popping up in the Senate. Will the vote in the Senate be a roll-call vote, or just a voice vote? We really need a record of how each Senator voted.

Color me paranoid, but I wont relax until it is signed by the Governor.
 
Phillips was tabling all amendments so that it would stay the same as the Senate version. He even made a motion to table the Schaefer amendment on Friday; but then there was some mumbling off microphone and Phillips said "will of the House" and the amendment passed 90-something.

That was the last amendment considered on Friday. Today on the third reading they had to have a 2/3 vote to amend so amendments needed a lot of popular support to pass. They clarified some iffy drafting in the Schaefer amendment with one amendment and then added the Dutton Amendment.

Hopefully, neither of those will be a problem in the Senate.
 
Just because you OC, they don't have the right to stop you.

That's what I think. But what do I know, Bart?
 
GEM said:
Just because you OC, they don't have the right to stop you.

That's what I think. But what do I know, Bart?
Click to expand...
I wonder how it is addressed in open carry states? I have traveled through and lived in open carry states, yet I don't recall ever seeing anybody open carrying. I was not tuned into the issue at the time, but I would have noticed somebody open carrying.
 
Correct PC meant probable cause.

In other news, "NFA Shall Sign" and reworking the NFA Defense to Prosecution language both passed the Senate today. So all of the major gun bills are through the Senate, except for HB910 which now has to go back.
 
Police need only reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Probable cause is the standard for arrest. If a stop is made without reasonable suspicion an officer or officers cannot articulate clearly, the stop is illegal. That won't prevent the cops from making illegal, random stops, but will make anything they find in the way of evidence inadmissible in court. However, lately there has been a loosening of that standard, and maybe evidence of crime found in an illegal stop is now more so or completely admissible. Perhaps someone who follows such things closely could clarify the above, or throw it in the trash, as it's just IMHO, free of charge.
 
gun_with_a_view said:
Police need only reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Probable cause is the standard for arrest. If a stop is made without reasonable suspicion an officer or officers cannot articulate clearly, the stop is illegal. That won't prevent the cops from making illegal, random stops, but will make anything they find in the way of evidence inadmissible in court. However, lately there has been a loosening of that standard, and maybe evidence of crime found in an illegal stop is now more so or completely admissible. Perhaps someone who follows such things closely could clarify the above, or throw it in the trash, as it's just IMHO, free of charge.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer or even a history teacher but didn't the SCOTUS just rule on "illegal stops" and evidence found in those stops? Something, I believe, the Court said the evidence was admissible. Anyone know?

Found what I was referring to:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/15/nation/na-supreme-court-police15

Ibid. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court pulled back on the "exclusionary rule" Wednesday and ruled that evidence from an illegal search can be used if a police officer made an innocent mistake.

The 5-4 opinion signals that the court is ready to rethink this key rule in criminal law and restrict its reach. It will also give prosecutors and judges nationwide more leeway to make use of evidence that may have been seen as questionable before.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the guilty should not "go free" just because a computer error or a misunderstanding between police officers led to a wrongful arrest or search.

He said good evidence, even if obtained in a bad search, can be used against a suspect unless the police deliberately or recklessly violated his rights.
 
Last edited:
Here is the language of the Dutton Amendment for those who are interested:

"Amendment No. 3

SECTIONi____.iiSubchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:

Sec.i411.2049.
iiCERTAIN 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."
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Here is the language of the Dutton Amendment for those who are interested:

"Amendment No. 3

SECTIONi____.iiSubchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as follows:

Sec.i411.2049.
iiCERTAIN 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."
Click to expand...
That's knocking on the door of Constitutional carry.
 
There were 3 amendments total. The first one was just a "perfecting amendment" - they changed the word "nursing home" to "nursing facility" so that it matched language used in the rest of Texas statute; but didn't make any changes to how the actual law worked.
 
I am a little confused how your post ties in with open carry
Click to expand...

It was just for clarification where somebody had probable cause mixed up with reasonable suspicion and investigative stops by police insofar as they relate to open carry. Strictly informative, I hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Texas Senate approves open carry of handguns
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
6K
Red Wind
Red Wind
C
  • Locked
West Virginia Castle Doctrine Bill to Governor
Replies
1
Views
486
Bubbles
B
M
  • Locked
Oklahoma: "Unlicensed Open Carry" Passes House
Replies
3
Views
1K
Midwest
M
G
  • Locked
Ohio House spanks Senate
Replies
1
Views
433
GhostShooter
G
J
  • Locked
Open Carry Passed in TX... now what?
Replies
24
Views
2K
Deltaboy1984
Deltaboy1984
Back
Top