Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 172

Thread: HB 910 - Licensed Open Carry - Officially Passed Out of Texas House of Representative

  1. #1
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712

    HB 910 - Licensed Open Carry - Officially Passed Out of Texas House of Representative

    It's official people! HB 910 has passed out of the Texas House today!

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillL...84R&Bill=HB910


    Looks like they might have added some amendments to it today. I'm going to take a look at the Journal when it's posted to see if we can get more information on that.

  2. #2
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    Congratulations! Now you get enjoy the gradually diminishing feeling of victory as the weight of the amendments sinks in...

    I wish I was more than half-joking, but I'm all too familiar with that feeling.

  3. #3
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blues View Post
    Congratulations! Now you get enjoy the gradually diminishing feeling of victory as the weight of the amendments sinks in...

    I wish I was more than half-joking, but I'm all too familiar with that feeling.
    I don't think any controversial amendments passed today because on the 3rd reading they require a 2/3 vote.

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blues View Post
    Congratulations! Now you get enjoy the gradually diminishing feeling of victory as the weight of the amendments sinks in...

    I wish I was more than half-joking, but I'm all too familiar with that feeling.
    One of the amendments basically prohibits law enforcement from going around checking license status of OCers.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300

    Exclamation

    The only amendments that passed were one that says if you trespass after being given notice its a class a or c misdemeanor and one that says cops can't stop you solely because you are carrying a firearm

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillL...84R&Bill=HB910
    Last edited by mustangkiller; 04-20-2015 at 06:44 PM.

  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    ...and one that says cops can't stop you solely because you are carrying a firearm
    That is actually an AWESOME amendment.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    I agree 100% my friend. I haven't read the journal yet so I may be wrong but I don't think so. I'm also good with the other amendment. I'm sorry, if youre on someone's property and youre not welcome there armed or otherwise, you need to go to jail.

  8. #8
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    I agree 100% my friend. I haven't read the journal yet so I may be wrong but I don't think so. I'm also good with the other amendment. I'm sorry, if youre on someone's property and youre not welcome there armed or otherwise, you need to go to jail.
    If I remember from Friday, the amendment was actually lowering the crime from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C misdemeanor if you mistakenly carried onto a property that was properly posted. If you remained on property after being notified of the signs, it bumped it back to a Class A misdemeanor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  9. #9
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    If I remember from Friday, the amendment was actually lowering the crime from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C misdemeanor if you mistakenly carried onto a property that was properly posted. If you remained on property after being notified of the signs, it bumped it back to a Class A misdemeanor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
    I think you are exactly correct. I haven't read it thoroughly but I think MAYBE the amendment today just rephrases the amendment from last Friday that accomplishes what you describe. I'm not sure what the exact differences are or the purpose for rephrasing it, but I think that the end result will be basically the same... If someone in control of a property asks you to leave, just leave... And if you walk past a legal sign, you could get hit with a class c. If I find the time I'll try to read the two amendments more closely and compare but one of you will probably beat me to it.
    Advocate freedom please

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    What is the next step? The senate either throws out their bills and adopts 910 or amends theirs to match, a full senate vote and then off to Abbott? There is probably a senate committee meeting in there somewhere in sure.

  11. #11
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Here's a link to the whole process:
    http://www.house.state.tx.us/about-us/bill/

    Action on the Other House's Amendments and Conference Committees
    If a bill is returned to the originating chamber with amendments, the originating chamber can either agree to the amendments or request a conference committee to work out differences between the house version and the senate version. If the amendments are agreed to, the bill is put in final form, signed by the presiding officers, and sent to the governor.
    Conference committees are composed of five members from each house appointed by the presiding officers. Once the conference committee reaches agreement, a conference committee report is prepared and must be approved by at least three of the five conferees from each house. Conference committee reports are voted on in each house and must be approved or rejected without amendment. If approved by both houses, the bill is signed by the presiding officers and sent to the governor.
    So it looks like they can agree to the amendments or request a conference committee to try and compromise.

  12. #12
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Heard on radio today local PD spokesman complaining about who might be carrying a gun in the open and cant ask for papers. 'Going to be all sorts of calls to check out folks OC guns'.... As if 40 other states have not figured out how to deal w it...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  13. #13
    Newbie Deacon Blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    As if 40 other states have not figured out how to deal w it...
    ^This should be the response to all such fear mongering.

    I stand corrected on the amendments. Here in AL, we're not used to bills improving after they're introduced (quite the opposite is true). Maybe I should move to Texas...

  14. #14
    Newbie CNaivar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Central TX
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blues View Post
    ^This should be the response to all such fear mongering.

    I stand corrected on the amendments. Here in AL, we're not used to bills improving after they're introduced (quite the opposite is true). Maybe I should move to Texas...
    Had the bills actually been heard in Texas 2 years ago that would have been the case. However, the opinions about OC in Texas, the political makeup of the legislature, and all the calls and mail messages to representatives have changed the tide.

  15. #15
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    You know I am almost to the pojnt of fixin' to think about having to write posts about where I OC around town!!
    Talk about driving trips to Houston, Austin, and maybe El Paso (once every decade). It will be January, so can only do it on those days when sun is shining, sky is blue, wind out of the south, and it is 70degrees...



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    Heard on radio today local PD spokesman complaining about who might be carrying a gun in the open and cant ask for papers. 'Going to be all sorts of calls to check out folks OC guns'.... As if 40 other states have not figured out how to deal w it...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I was sitting in a police dispatch one time when they received a call of a guy walking through a parking lot of an apartment complex carrying a rifle. Police were dispatched and I said, "but the guy is not doing anything wrong." They agreed, but said "we have to go because we got a call." Which is not really true, but was their procedure. I can see the same thing happening, but I hope the dispatchers will ask "is it in a holster?" at which point an answer in the affirmative will get a reply like, "oh, that is legal, so I suggest you just ignore it."

  17. #17
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    That is actually an AWESOME amendment.
    No, I don't think it is. Case law already provides that a cop must have RAS to detain, and that simply carrying a firearm isn't RAS (not sure if these cases are binding in TX though). Similarly, case law exists against stopping drivers simply to check their license.

    If the law about OC does not contain the same provision as the CC law about requiring the OCER to hand over the license upon request, then it will be assumed that you don't have to.

    Now, with this law, it's good while it lasts. But years down the road someone may decide to repeal that section... and then it will be assumed that since it was repealed the Legislature is specifically allowing cops to detain only to check for the license, overriding previous case law to the contrary (case law outside of Appeals circuit and SCOTUS decisions at least).

    It's similar to Castle Doctrine arguments... if you codify a Common Law understanding and forget to add something then it's assumed it was purposeful... all previous case law gets tossed out the window... and if they codify it then repeal it then it's assumed the same... that they specifically didn't want that.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  18. #18
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Baked on Grease View Post
    No, I don't think it is. Case law already provides that a cop must have RAS to detain, and that simply carrying a firearm isn't RAS (not sure if these cases are binding in TX though). Similarly, case law exists against stopping drivers simply to check their license.

    If the law about OC does not contain the same provision as the CC law about requiring the OCER to hand over the license upon request, then it will be assumed that you don't have to.

    Now, with this law, it's good while it lasts. But years down the road someone may decide to repeal that section... and then it will be assumed that since it was repealed the Legislature is specifically allowing cops to detain only to check for the license, overriding previous case law to the contrary (case law outside of Appeals circuit and SCOTUS decisions at least).

    It's similar to Castle Doctrine arguments... if you codify a Common Law understanding and forget to add something then it's assumed it was purposeful... all previous case law gets tossed out the window... and if they codify it then repeal it then it's assumed the same... that they specifically didn't want that.
    Not denying that what you're saying is accurate, but that seems like some really silly assumptions for any court to make...
    Advocate freedom please

  19. #19
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Not denying that what you're saying is accurate, but that seems like some really silly assumptions for any court to make...
    It's almost play by play of what we have (and also almost had) happen here in Va. Our 'secure container' law for CC was a vehicle excpetion. The legislature originally passed it as Locked, the Governor sent it back with the change from Locked to Secure. Congress passed it with this change.

    Little while later someone gets arrested because the cops construed secured to mean locked. The courts looked at the history of revisions to see that the legislature specifically changed it from locked to secure so they understood that to mean that the legislature didn't intend for the container to be locked, merely 'secured'.

    Without a clear definition in the law the courts can look at the intent of the legislature to determine how the law should be interpreted... if Congress didn't address something or repealed something then they must have intended for it to not be covered under the law.

    Look at user's summation of last year's attempt to pass Castle Doctrine in VA. He lays out the exact arguement but from a lawyer's point of view. Anything codified into law can be change with a few strokes of the pen later on by slipping something into a future bill (like how Student loans were tucked into Healthcare and no one knew it till it almost passed) and then previous case state case law means nothing as the new law superceded it and was repealed.

    At least, that is my understanding of the dangers of codifiing case/common law into written law. It now is at the mercy of the politicians whims.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Frankly I'm still not at that point where I am excited as we have not yet seen what the Senate will actually do because of the amendments and the political games currently ongoing. I'll even go so far as to say that we might very well see things removed rather than moving it forward as it is.
    NRA Life Member

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster View Post
    Frankly I'm still not at that point where I am excited as we have not yet seen what the Senate will actually do because of the amendments and the political games currently ongoing. I'll even go so far as to say that we might very well see things removed rather than moving it forward as it is.
    I uderstand but Texas Carry and the NRA have said HB 910 will carry over the Senate version. I'm sure this was discussed among Senators before the House did what they did.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  22. #22
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I uderstand but Texas Carry and the NRA have said HB 910 will carry over the Senate version.
    Are Texas Carry and the NRA infallible?

    Regardless of what they have said, the legislature has their process laid out quite clearly. Everything has to be done officially and the fact of the matter is that the House added amendments that SB17 did not have. It has to be voted on by the Senate on the floor.

  23. #23
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Are Texas Carry and the NRA infallible?

    Regardless of what they have said, the legislature has their process laid out quite clearly. Everything has to be done officially and the fact of the matter is that the House added amendments that SB17 did not have. It has to be voted on by the Senate on the floor.
    No, but the NRA has come out in support of the bill as passed in the House. They're very cowardly when it comes to open carry, they wouldn't be so vocal if there were serious doubts. Texas is very anti gun, legally speaking, and the republicans don't believe in the right to bear arms, but I still feel good about it.
    Last edited by 77zach; 04-23-2015 at 02:08 PM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Are Texas Carry and the NRA infallible?

    Regardless of what they have said, the legislature has their process laid out quite clearly. Everything has to be done officially and the fact of the matter is that the House added amendments that SB17 did not have. It has to be voted on by the Senate on the floor.
    Any word on when that happens? I can't find anything new on it. Just that it was sitting in the senate

  25. #25
    Lone Star Veteran Ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    712
    I hate to break it to you, but if you guys are sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for things to happen right now, you're going to be disappointed. I've been following this all since January and the best piece of advice I have is to subscribe to both bills on the Texas legislature website and then just try and forget about it until you get an email update. Every time something happens with the bill, it notifies me by email almost immediately.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •