The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Hopefully not long. They didn't waste any time with SB17, hopefully they afford the same courtesy to HB910.The Wall wrote:I'm wondering how long the Senate will sit on it.
Absolutely!Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?
Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?
and if it did would that open up killing the law in a state supreme court once the governor signed it?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Absolutely!Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?
Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?
Chas.
It was not relevant. That's how they announce passage of the other body's bills.bigity wrote:I'm not sure it was related, I think a runner was just bringing something over?
Probably not since the local opt-out provision could be separated from the rest of the law. Local opt-out provisions were DOA from the beginning and that was nothing more than grandstanding for voters in their districts.Tracker wrote:and if it did would that open up killing the Bill in a state supreme court?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Absolutely!Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?
Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?
Chas.
Rep. Dutton came up with this on his own. You will note that it was not even read, much less discussed. That's all I'll say for now.TrueFlog wrote:Both of today's amendments are huge gains in my book -definitely worth waiting an extra day for. I have to say, though, I'm surprised Amendment 3 was approved. Charles's comments yesterday on one of the amendments made me think that the House would be hostile towards an amendment like this. I'm also curious why it wasn't considered yesterday. Was it intentionally held back? Were there more absences by the opposition in the House today?
that's what I thought the luv fest grandstanding was for, political capital back home. If they vote against OC and for reducing the Class A to a Class C on 30.06 they get to play to the liberals and to CHLers in their district that they aren't anti-gun but believe OC shouldn't be the law of the land. Or at least OC might be OK for their rural constituents but not the city ones.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Probably not since the local opt-out provision could be separated from the rest of the law. Local opt-out provisions were DOA from the beginning and that was nothing more than grandstanding for voters in their districts.Tracker wrote:and if it did would that open up killing the Bill in a state supreme court?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Absolutely!Pawpaw wrote:Could someone clarify this for me (Charles?)?
Wouldn't this amendment fail on Constitutional grounds?
Chas.
Chas.
Another good day for licensed concealed carry and open carry.Vol Texan wrote:Sounds like Demi Moore's line in, A Few Good Men: Your Honor, I STRENUOUSLY object!"
yeah.CJD wrote:Too bad the amended change to 30.06 wouldn't become enacted until Jan.
I think by the time this becomes law, as with every police department in the State, all new laws are explained to all officers in writing. I know I was one for 15 years.The Wall wrote:I'm betting it will happen anyway in the beginning. Might want to carry a copy of the bill to show just in case. I would cooperate with the officer first and then hand him a copy.Ruark wrote:All riiiiiiight!!!! That was a major open carry issue for me, that some lard-assed cop is going to wobble up to me... "justaminnit here, son, step over here for a second...."locke_n_load wrote:Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
7 PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop
8 or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person
9 possesses a handgun license solely because the person is
10 carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a
11 shoulder or belt holster.
I won't OC all the time, but when I do, I'm going to carry a copy of this code with me.
