HB410 status

Relevant bills filed and their status

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


Topic author
jlangton
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:40 am
Location: SE Texas

Re: HB410 status

#31

Post by jlangton » Thu May 14, 2009 2:54 pm

Purplehood wrote:I agree with the take what you get for now theory...
I can deal with nibbling away at it.
JL
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.

6/14/08-CHL Class
10/15/08-Plastic in Hand

User avatar

boomerang
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2629
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: HB410 status

#32

Post by boomerang » Thu May 14, 2009 3:52 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:BTW, the floor amendment that prevented LEO's from being notified that a person had a CHL when they check their DL status doomed the bill. That was the primary justification for removing the duty to disclose a CHL. There was no reason to penalize a CHL if they forgot, or were nervous during a traffic stop, when the officer was going to be advised anyway. Whether you agree with it or not, like it or not, HB410 was not going to pass with that provision. The Senate committee had already blasted the Senate companion bill and it didn't have the 410 floor amendment.

Chas.
It's sad the state senate surrendered to fearmongering. MPA doesn't show up on a DL check.

Time to ramp up my advocacy for Florida, Utah and other nonresident CHL. They aren't linked to the Texas DL so no pesky notification.
"Ees gun! Ees not safe!"


Russell
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2807
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:46 pm

Re: HB410 status

#33

Post by Russell » Fri May 15, 2009 2:45 pm

boomerang wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:BTW, the floor amendment that prevented LEO's from being notified that a person had a CHL when they check their DL status doomed the bill. That was the primary justification for removing the duty to disclose a CHL. There was no reason to penalize a CHL if they forgot, or were nervous during a traffic stop, when the officer was going to be advised anyway. Whether you agree with it or not, like it or not, HB410 was not going to pass with that provision. The Senate committee had already blasted the Senate companion bill and it didn't have the 410 floor amendment.

Chas.
It's sad the state senate surrendered to fearmongering. MPA doesn't show up on a DL check.

Time to ramp up my advocacy for Florida, Utah and other nonresident CHL. They aren't linked to the Texas DL so no pesky notification.


You must follow the state's CHL laws that you are in regardless of which state's license you have.

True, it won't come up on the officer's DL check, but if he asks you to step out of the car and you are carrying, you're gonna be in for a bad surprise if you didn't notify him before hand.
http://www.texas3006.com - Texas 30.06 and 30.07 Signage Database.
Join us on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/texas3006

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17225
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB410 status

#34

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Fri May 15, 2009 2:57 pm

Unless people want those carrying under the Motorist Protection Act to have to notify LEO's as do CHLs, then I wouldn't keep mentioning the fact that they currently have no such duty. One of the Senator's on the committee mentioned that we need uniformity alright and that uniformity would come in the form of requiring anyone carrying a gun to tell a LEO.

Chas.
Image


CainA
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:25 pm
Location: Houston-Spring

Re: HB410 status

#35

Post by CainA » Fri May 15, 2009 3:06 pm

I don't understand the mentality of why the notification is necessary. OK, so the good guys will notify the officer and the bad guys won't, right? So what's the point?

-Cain

User avatar

Bart
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart
Contact:

Re: HB410 status

#36

Post by Bart » Fri May 15, 2009 3:43 pm

CainA wrote:I don't understand the mentality of why the notification is necessary. OK, so the good guys will notify the officer and the bad guys won't, right? So what's the point?

-Cain
The point is to infringe on the rights of the good guys while increasing the privileges of criminals and politicians. But I repeat myself.

The courts ruled that criminals carrying illegally, including violent convicts, don't have to tell cops they have a gun. It violates their right to require them to tell cops.

But it's OK to force someone who has a clean record, jumped through the training hoops, paid for a permission slip to carry, etc. to tell cops. Because we have less rights than convicted murderers and rapists. :banghead:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


stash
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:04 am
Location: Woodcreek

Re: HB410 status

#37

Post by stash » Sat May 16, 2009 8:09 am

Regarding carrying in a vehicle under CHL or MPA, I would guess that it is going to become more common for the first question out of a LEO's mouth at a traffic stop will be something like - you gotta gun in the vehicle? That would cover all bases unless the individual carrying under MPA lies to the officer.
TSRA
NRA
TFC
USMC 1961-1966

User avatar

boomerang
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 2629
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:06 pm
Contact:

Re: HB410 status

#38

Post by boomerang » Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am

The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police? :headscratch

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.
"Ees gun! Ees not safe!"


Topic author
jlangton
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 252
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:40 am
Location: SE Texas

Re: HB410 status

#39

Post by jlangton » Sat May 16, 2009 3:05 pm

boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police? :headscratch

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.
Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.
JL
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
-Thomas Jefferson.

6/14/08-CHL Class
10/15/08-Plastic in Hand

User avatar

64zebra
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:06 pm
Location: Panhandle of Texas!

Re: HB410 status

#40

Post by 64zebra » Wed May 20, 2009 4:16 pm

jlangton wrote:
boomerang wrote:The criminals are still allowed to lie. So how does the question help the police? :headscratch

I'll save my other comments until after the conclusion of the current legislative session in Austin.
Logical people seem to understand this. "Elitist" law enforcement officers do not. Those few officers spoil it for everybody-Law-abiding citizens and their fellow officers alike.
JL
exactly, the criminals are going to be ones I worry about on a traffic stop

it makes no sense to me to have CHL holders have to inform LEO when asked for ID vs non-CHL holders not having too, it is completely illogical

Charles, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the "feel good" provisions added to get the CHL legislation passed in '95?

to me, if I get a return on someone indicating they have a CHL I'd be thinking: 'cool'; no problem; I wouldn't freak out and forcing a licensee to inform me does nothing for officer safety
LEO/CHL Certified Glock Armorer
Guns: not enough space here, but G17 duty/G30 off/S&W 642 BU
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals, why do criminals support gun control?


dihappy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:00 pm
Location: San Antonio

Re: HB410 status

#41

Post by dihappy » Sat May 30, 2009 7:04 pm

dac1842 wrote:Personally, regardless of the law change. I will present my CHL and will notify that I am carrying. I was an LEO for 15 years, I consider it a courtesy to the officer. Anytime another LEO is stopped by an LEO the first words are I am a police officer and I packing. I know many on here disagree with that, but, if you show him some courtesy and sincere concern for his safety then he might be inclined to return the courtesy. I have done this for years with and without a CHL and to this date I have never been ticketed.

I know the MPA folks dont have to declare a weapon, but if any kind of stats are maintained I would bet that the percentage of MPA's getting ticketed dwarfs the percentage of CHL's getting ticketed. Not that the CHL is ticket free card, but if you are courteous and show sincere concern for the officer, it is generally returned.
My concern is for the person who has had his CHL approved but has yet to receive his license.
I know one person who is trying to fight having his license suspended before he has even received it for failure to present it in a traffic stop, even tho he was carrying under MPA.
Image

User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Re: HB410 status

#42

Post by stevie_d_64 » Sat May 30, 2009 10:31 pm

jlangton wrote:
stash wrote:I really for the life of me cannot figure out why anyone up there would be against this, especially with the MPA and all.
Elitist law-enforcement influence. In discussions with guys at work there is one ex-sheriff's deputy here, and he's absolutely against any law that eliminates the duty to inform. His opinion is that law-enforcement officers MUST know every time there is a firearm in any vehicle, any time that there is a stop-no matter what. His opinion is that the public isn't trustworthy, and that he's at risk no matter who it is-if there's a firearm anywhere in the vehicle. We definitely do not agree on this at all. He's also of the opinion that anybody that doesn't come out and announce that there is a firearm is trying to hide something. That's the influence that we're all fighting against in passage of bills like these, and the influence on lawmakers from the elitist law-enforcement types is HUGE.
JL
Well, my opinion has always been that trust is a two-way street...

With all due respect to those in law enforcement, and I have stated this for years many times...If the juvenile opinion that anyone who has a gun on their person, or in thier vehicle or home, and we (Joe Q. Public) by not informing law enforcement of those firearm(s) that the insinuation that that person is trying to hide something from them...Or at the least doing somethign wrong...

The attitude and misperception is in the worng place and on the wrong side...

WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM HERE...

Nor are we the solution...We are only doing what we should be doing in the moral right to keep and bear arms in the defense of ones self and others around us per the laws of the states we carry in...

Why is that always been a difficult concept of some law enforcement folks to accept???
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!

Locked

Return to “2009 Texas Legislative Session”