TexasCHLforum.com

I saw that you voted "no" for concurrence with the Senate amendment even though you voted in favor of the original House bill which had similar language.

This amendment to the bill should not kill the bill due to the fact that the amendment is simply reiterating what is already law. As it is now a police officer cannot demand ID from a person who is doing nothing wrong. This amendment was more to quash concerns of citizens who, rightfully, fear an aggressive police response to lawful open carry. If you do not believe me I would kindly direct you to Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo's comments before the Legislature.

While I understand the concerns of law enforcement weigh heavily on the legislature I would appreciate if feelings are left out of lawmaking and the facts of open carry are relied upon instead. I ask that you do everything in your power to keep this bill alive, and even if the conference committee cannot work out the differences I ask that you vote for concurrence on HB910 even with the Dutton/Huffines amendment.

Thank you for your time and your continuted support of Second Amendment rights.

Sincerely,

Overthehill wrote:Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

baldeagle wrote:

Overthehill wrote:Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

You answered your own question. "to kill open carry"

Jasonw560 wrote:Sen. Whitmire, in his dressing down of Sen. Huffines, mentioned that Philedelphia had different laws regarding open carry than the rest of PA. What he (naturally) forgot to mention is the higher crime rate: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/pa/philadelphia/crime/

It's things like this that our side needs to be more versed on, and call out the other side for getting out ALL the facts.

C-dub wrote:On the off chance that campus carry does pass and a school does make any of their buildings off limits, how will anyone know a particular building is off limits? Will they have to also post 30.06 sign(s)?

Callaway wrote:Texas GOP ‏@TexasGOP 26m26 minutes ago
#txlege Republicans are close to increasing border security funding, passing historic tax cuts and expanding #2A rights!

Slap in the face or poorly scheduled tweet.

Overthehill wrote:Just one question. If Federal law already prohibits stopping just to inquire for a liscense and both amendments simply restate federal law then why, except to kill open carry, did some in the law enforcement community raise such a stink and why did the representatives roll over and vote not to concur. If law enforcement is truly prohibited from committing an act why was reinforcement of that prohibition an issue of such import? Or is the federal prohibition not factual? Simply seeking greater knowledge.

JollyHappyDad wrote:Where do I find the list of committee members?

EDIT: Check that, I found it.

Stripes Dude wrote:Anyone know when the committees are meeting?