TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

So because LEOs as a whole perceived this as a slap in the face, the bill goes down?
They (LEOs) mainly in the larger cities didn't support HB910 anyway.

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

So because LEOs as a whole perceived this as a slap in the face, the bill goes down?
They (LEOs) mainly in the larger cities didn't support HB910 anyway.

I don't know that "LEOs don't support open carry" is accurate, at least in my experience. LEADERSHIP doesn't support it for the most part, but I've yet to talk to a responder that has a problem with CHLers. I can see how the amendment may ruffle feathers, though. Its pretty much a "Screw You" to the cops who do the right thing. Bad cops will still ignore 4A to get what they're after.

Taypo wrote:

safety1 wrote:While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

So because LEOs as a whole perceived this as a slap in the face, the bill goes down?
They (LEOs) mainly in the larger cities didn't support HB910 anyway.

I
I'm speaking of LEOs that spoke against HB910 on the floor and those whom openly spoke against it.
It may just be leadership of LEOs, but they are the ones that get the podium time.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

Perhaps it was perceived as such. But a few (a very few) CLEO's have brought about this lack of trust. A small minority of CLEO's would have used the license checks to harass OC'ers. This amendment was specifically targeted at them. To the good LEO's, the amendment was superfluous as they would do the right thing regardless. The few bad ones may likely ignore this anyway, as I don't see any penalty associated with it. But at least we have a clear intent from the legislative branch.

I understand how this could make LEOs feel. But I also don't have a lot of faith in LEOs like Austin's Chief, who would likely make OC a miserable experience for anyone in the city limits, based on some of his commentary. While the exception, he clearly needs to be managed through legislation.

Just turned it on, are the Dems just stalling to kill time. Seems like they are shilling the amendments for the state wide elected official,s residence requirements.

It that an accurate assessment from about 5 minutes of watching?

mojo84 wrote:Just turned it on, are the Dems just stalling to kill time. Seems like they are shilling the amendments for the state wide elected official,s residence requirements.

It that an accurate assessment from about 5 minutes of watching?

I recently turned it on too, and it does appear they are stalling

Stripes Dude wrote:I understand how this could make LEOs feel. But I also don't have a lot of faith in LEOs like Austin's Chief, who would likely make OC a miserable experience for anyone in the city limits, based on some of his commentary. While the exception, he clearly needs to be managed through legislation.

I agree that Art Acevedo's comments made it sound like police were going to pull over anyone with a handgun and ask for identification. Lets just pretend that would actually happen. It would not take long for there to be some serious media blowback.

I'm kind of indifferent on the amendment, as it was redundant. I shake my head at Huffines' inability to copy and paste, and I thought it was a bad move to re-introduce it, however, it is there now, and the 80 something co-authors need to step up to the plate. As stated before by others, this bill could and should have been passed long ago if it were a priority. The republicans will need to blame themselves, not Huffines if HB910 goes down in flames.

I really do think it will be fine (knock on wood!), but the fact that we are still waiting and hoping on May 26 is pretty frustrating.

Rrash wrote: I agree that Art Acevedo's comments made it sound like police were going to pull over anyone with a handgun and ask for identification. Lets just pretend that would actually happen. It would not take long for there to be some serious media blowback.

Doubt that. Most of the media are anti-2A and could care less is gun carriers are hassled. They'd feel it was perfectly justified.

timtheteacher wrote:ELIGIBLE AT 2:40 PM MAY 26, 2015:

HB 910 Phillips / Flynn / White, James / Riddle / Guillen / et al.


Could be soon......

Then way things are going on the floor right now.....I doubt it.

timtheteacher wrote:ELIGIBLE AT 2:40 PM MAY 26, 2015:

HB 910 Phillips / Flynn / White, James / Riddle / Guillen / et al.


Could be soon......

Will likely be tomorrow. I don't think they are going to switch calendars today.

XinTX wrote:

Rrash wrote: I agree that Art Acevedo's comments made it sound like police were going to pull over anyone with a handgun and ask for identification. Lets just pretend that would actually happen. It would not take long for there to be some serious media blowback.

Doubt that. Most of the media are anti-2A and could care less is gun carriers are hassled. They'd feel it was perfectly justified.

The only thing the media would want to expose more would be dirty tactics by cops, a la "stop and frisk".

**edited to add, I don't support the media agenda. I'm just saying it would happen.

Look, if someone doesn't know how to quote, then don't do it. It makes it appear that some Members have posted something they did not.

Chas.

safety1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While it would have been in statute, in the real world and courts, it was little more than a policy statement. It was a good policy statement, but it was also a slap in the face to law enforcement because it was a legislative statement that LEOs are not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with that or not (I do not), that's how the Dutton amendment has been perceived.

Chas.

So because LEOs as a whole perceived this as a slap in the face, the bill goes down?
They (LEOs) mainly in the larger cities didn't support HB910 anyway.

Right now I'm mad at everything in the universe, so I'm pretty much out of patience.

With that said, stop putting words in my mouth!!! I pointed out why the Dutton amendment has become a problem; I didn't say that HB910 was dead.

Chas.