• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Deacon Blues

Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
124
Location
Birmingham, AL
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.
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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. :)
 

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
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.
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

mustangkiller

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
300
Location
, ,
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.
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
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.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
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
 

Deacon Blues

Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
124
Location
Birmingham, AL
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...
 

CNaivar

Newbie
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
3
Location
Central TX
^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.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,467
Location
Dallas
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
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
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."
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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...
 

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
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.
 

Glockster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Houston
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.
 
Top