Mike
Site Co-Founder
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/...ents/?c=233318
SNIP
A controversial provision, which law enforcement officials have said would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions, has been removed from a key gun bill, lawmakers confirmed Thursday.
Without the language limiting the power of police officers to ask those openly carrying guns to present their permits, the legislation allowing license-holders to openly carry handguns is expected to have the votes to pass both chambers.
"The Dutton/Huffines amendment is dead," said state Rep. Alfonso "Poncho" Nevárez, an Eagle Pass Democrat who took part in the negotiations over House Bill 910." There's nothing more to do. That was the only bit of housekeeping on the bill that was to be had. It's a done deal, for all intents and purposes."
. . .
- Break -
Commentary from Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder, OpenCarry.org:
"While I'm glad that removal of the "cop stop" provision paves the way for approval of the open carry bill, as well as presumably the campus carry bill which will be attached as a rider to the open carry bill, removal of the "cop-stop-block-amendment" to the statutory language of the Texas open carry bill does not alter the fact that the 4th Amendment prohibits the same police conduct - suspicion-less seizure of open carriers - that some legislators sought to explicitly prohibit via statutory language," says Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org.
"Removal of the open carry protection language preventing the police from randomly demanding open carriers to present gun carry permits will just lead to lawsuits against the police and taxpayer costs to settle the lawsuits. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure has been construed by the US Supreme Court to forbid police seizure of persons unless the police at least have 'reasonable articulable suspicion' that crime is afoot. In the matter of police checking of licenses, the Supreme Court held in Delaware v. Prause that '[e]xcept where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' Applying this construction of law to open carriers - in the minority of states where a license is required to open carry - means that the police violate the constitution if they seize open carriers just to see their license. The now-stricken amendment to the Texas open carry statute would have actually kept the police out of trouble and saved taxpayers the cost of damages and legal fees when aggrieved open carriers sue under the federal civil rights act at 42 USC 1983. Unless the Texas Attorney General and police chiefs conduct extra training for police, police officers will no doubt mistakenly think they can demand to see permits from every open carrier, leading to violations of Fourth Amendment rights, costs for taxpayers, and pay days for lawyers," added Stollenwerk.
SNIP
A controversial provision, which law enforcement officials have said would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions, has been removed from a key gun bill, lawmakers confirmed Thursday.
Without the language limiting the power of police officers to ask those openly carrying guns to present their permits, the legislation allowing license-holders to openly carry handguns is expected to have the votes to pass both chambers.
"The Dutton/Huffines amendment is dead," said state Rep. Alfonso "Poncho" Nevárez, an Eagle Pass Democrat who took part in the negotiations over House Bill 910." There's nothing more to do. That was the only bit of housekeeping on the bill that was to be had. It's a done deal, for all intents and purposes."
. . .
- Break -
Commentary from Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder, OpenCarry.org:
"While I'm glad that removal of the "cop stop" provision paves the way for approval of the open carry bill, as well as presumably the campus carry bill which will be attached as a rider to the open carry bill, removal of the "cop-stop-block-amendment" to the statutory language of the Texas open carry bill does not alter the fact that the 4th Amendment prohibits the same police conduct - suspicion-less seizure of open carriers - that some legislators sought to explicitly prohibit via statutory language," says Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org.
"Removal of the open carry protection language preventing the police from randomly demanding open carriers to present gun carry permits will just lead to lawsuits against the police and taxpayer costs to settle the lawsuits. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure has been construed by the US Supreme Court to forbid police seizure of persons unless the police at least have 'reasonable articulable suspicion' that crime is afoot. In the matter of police checking of licenses, the Supreme Court held in Delaware v. Prause that '[e]xcept where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' Applying this construction of law to open carriers - in the minority of states where a license is required to open carry - means that the police violate the constitution if they seize open carriers just to see their license. The now-stricken amendment to the Texas open carry statute would have actually kept the police out of trouble and saved taxpayers the cost of damages and legal fees when aggrieved open carriers sue under the federal civil rights act at 42 USC 1983. Unless the Texas Attorney General and police chiefs conduct extra training for police, police officers will no doubt mistakenly think they can demand to see permits from every open carrier, leading to violations of Fourth Amendment rights, costs for taxpayers, and pay days for lawyers," added Stollenwerk.
Last edited: