• 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.

Open Carry, HB 910 Substitute, in Texas Senate now

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
915
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
HB 910, the Texas licensed open carry bill, passed the House by 2/3 margins. The bill went through the Senate State Affairs Committee, where the Dutton amendment was stripped from it. Now, being debated on the floor of the full Senate, the debate is whether to put the Dutton amendment back in. The Dutton amendment specifies that peace officers may not detain open carriers simply to ask if they have a license, but must have probable cause to suspect criminal activity, just like they need for any Terry stop. The amendment is designed to protect open carriers from police harassment. Here is the text of the amendment:

CERTAIN 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.

The second amendment supporters of open carry, represented by C.J. Grisham, have said that the amendment is not important, because of precedent that guards against this type of stop in any case. Others say that it is useful, because it will prevent the flood of lawsuits that will be required to enforce the judicial rulings in Texas.

A potential advantage for bringing the Dutton amendment back, is that the bill can be restored to a duplicate of the House Bill 910. Then it does not have to go back to the House for a vote. It can be engrossed after the Senate third vote and sent to Governor Abbott for signature. The progress of the bill is being followed closely, with knowledgeable debate on procedure and fine points, on Texasguntalk.com.

The Senate has now postponed debate until 6pm, an hour and a half from now.


http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/open-carry-hb-910-substitute-in-texas.html
 

Ian

Lone Star Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
710
Location
Austin, TX
The Senate stream is now up and they will start shortly. If you haven't called any senators, now is the time to do so! Make sure to voice your support of Amendment 9 for HB 910.
 

Glockster

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Houston
Done, passed with identical language and official site shows it now next stop to the Governor!
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,754
Location
Granite State of Mind
Not quite yet.
A three word discrepancy sends it back to the House.
It goes back to the conference committee before the house.

I've been told that there's a quirk that allows the author to agree to the changes, so it can skip the conference altogether and go straight to the governor. I don't know if that will happen, because... Texas.

It's a bizarre state for gun rights.
 

glock_221

Newbie
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
1
Location
Texas
Sorry Wish it was True

Done, passed with identical language and official site shows it now next stop to the Governor!
There is a three word different between Huffines amendment and the Dutton amendment so it does have to go back to the house. If the house concurs on the amendment than it can go to the governor. Here is the difference. Dutton amendment said a Police Officer can not stop someone because they are carrying. Huffines amendment said A Police Officer can't stop someone solely because they are carrying.

I see them easily concurring they are just about the same amendment . If Senator Joan Huffman would have not strip the language from the bill only to have it put back It would have gone to the Governor. Her only purpose was to gut the Bill. I volunteer with the NRA I have followed this bill very closely. The Police officers played her like a drum and she fell for it. We all know if a Officer wants to stop someone he will find away.

Senator Burton observed and state out loud you are trying to kill our bill. Senator Huffman is a RHINO. She never really wanted the Bill. She fell for the chiefs of Police observation. In every hearing they got to her as a Judge which she is she should have known A Police Officer can always find away to stop you and their hands are not tied. She should have known a criminal would never wear his gun where a Officer could observe it. Criminals are not allowed guns. Joan showed no respect for Senator West even though he is a Democrat he is ten times smarter than her.

Even one of the Democrats who said he will vote for it on third reading said he will filibuster it if it comes back. He went on to state your killing your own bill. If you live in the Houston area remember when election time comes around she will say she is for gun rights but she doesn't mean it.

I'm a EVC for the NRA. I work with candidates and we go to meetings we work with the press and I work eight gun shows a year. I have my own forum. I will answer any questions you have. Time is getting short this legislative session will be over June 1st for two years. Governor Abbott can can call another session I think if I remember correctly Perry called three in a row. There allot of good bills left out there He can term like that and call another session. Start calling your senators and house members in the TX state house. It will pass along party lines Democrats will not vote for it .

I will call my contact in senator Phillips office. I'll let you know what he tells me but I can't reveal his name. He is busy and has been nice enough to answer my questions so I can get honest answers to people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skavoovie

Newbie
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
2
Location
Texas
The Specific Differences in Section 411.2049

There is a three word different between Huffines amendment and the Dutton amendment so it does have to go back to the house. If the house concurs on the amendment than it can go to the governor. Here is the difference. Dutton amendment said a Police Officer can not stop someone because they are carrying. Huffines amendment said A Police Officer can't stop someone solely because they are carrying.

Here's the official analysis document as posted on the Texas Legislative website. Scroll to page 19, the only differences found.



The two variances between the House (H) and Senate (S) versions are in Section 29, adding section 411.2049:

1. First Discrepancy:
H: "...as to whether a person possesses a handgun license..."
S: "...as to a person's possession of a handgun license..."

2. Second Discrepancy:
H: "...is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster."
S: "...is carrying in a shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun."
 
Top