TexasCHLforum.com

CJD wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

The latter.

Where did the intent calendar disappear to? I saw it this morning.

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

She stated on the floor it was to provide a deterrence to those that might carry openly without a CHL.
It might have well been to make those in support of the amend to rethink it, putting a burden on CHLers for just forgetting their wallet.
The latter is a opinion, the first part she stated on the floor.

steveincowtown wrote:

CJD wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

The latter.

Where did the intent calendar disappear to? I saw it this morning.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Calendar ... spx?Chbr=H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look under Items eligible for consideration today..

Is this the difference in amendments?


Huffine 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.


Dutton Amendment:
CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. Prohibits a peace officer from making 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.

Huffman's premise was if LE was going to be precluded by the Huffines amendment from questioning open carriers (she didn't seem to care about the 'without cause' part), then there "...ought to be..." a stiffer penalty for carrying without, because, as she asked Huffines during debate, "...won't you agree..." (stiffer penalties) "...are more of a deterrent...?" A highlight of the debate occurred shortly thereafter when West presented (dare I say, "spanked") her with the reminder that the act of carrying OC without permit was no more egregious in the eyes of the law than carrying concealed without permit, and that the existing penalty had been debated more than once over the years, including not that long ago (intimating she had participated at that time) and "...this body..." had agreed on all occasions to leave it a misdemeanor; she withdrew the amendment forthwith...

Considering the position she argued, I wonder how she voted on the recently passed bill that REDUCED the penalty for truancy, because the criminal deterrent wasn't working (particularly in Ft bend County)...

It appears that link is is only good if you get to it via the link two post above. It appears that it is no longer there. Gonna be a busy day in the Senate anyway, so we may have to wait a couple days. Look at the other business that has to get done.

HCR 62 (LC) Springer SP: Estes

Designating Nocona as the official Classic Car Capital of Texas for a 10-year period beginning in 2015.

HCR 35 (LC) Farney/ Button/ Springer/ King, Ken/ et al. SP: Schwertner

Designating the cowboy hat as the official State Hat of Texas.

HCR 76 (LC) Guillen SP: Uresti

Designating Poteet as the official Strawberry Capital of Texas for a 10-year period beginning in 2015.

If anyone attempts to claim "we ran out of time." Please be assured that Poteet being designated as the official Strawberry Capital of Texas was a very important issue this session.

pt145ss wrote:Is this the difference in amendments?


Huffine 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.


Dutton Amendment:
CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. Prohibits a peace officer from making 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.

Cross posted:

The Huffines Amendment has been posted:

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES
PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or
other temporary detention to inquire as to a person’s possession of
a handgun license solely because the person is carrying in a
shoulder or belt holster a partially or wholly visible handgun.

Dutton Amendment:

Sec. 411.2049. 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 underlines portions are different words, while the bolded portions are the same words but in a different order.

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

I do not have any inside information, but I believe she offered an amendment to the Huffines amendment trying to get him to pull it down, or to defeat it if it came to a vote. When the point-of-order was raised, I believe that even with the Senate's liberal approach to the germane issue it was not germane because it set a penalty for non-CHL's and the bill applied only to what a CHL could and could not do. That's why I believe she pulled down her amendment to the amendment.

I have no answer why she offered a state jail felony for carrying openly without a CHL. She has been on our side and made sure our gun bills received a hearing and a vote in her committee. In fact, our bills were sent to her committee so they wouldn't die in Whitmire's committee where they traditionally go.

Chas.

Huffman did a very good job in Committee. I hope this spat over the Huffines amendment hasn't affected her willingness to push 2A bills in future sessions.

v7a wrote:Huffman did a very good job in Committee. I hope this spat over the Huffines amendment hasn't affected her willingness to push 2A bills in future sessions.

Watching it, Whitmire's theatrics I understood. Huffman's delivery and posture alone were enough to conclude that getting Huffines to pull his amendment was her goal. But given her record of support, her approach was completely baffling - and IMHO, while Huffines may have deserved it, her shaming tactics didn't reflect well on her. Maybe they were all as stunned by Huffines' (painful to watch) grandstand, but if so, why were Hall & West still in his corner? The whole thing reminded me of one of the biggest reasons I long ago left my job working on the outside of the rail.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

I do not have any inside information, but I believe she offered an amendment to the Huffines amendment trying to get him to pull it down, or to defeat it if it came to a vote. When the point-of-order was raised, I believe that even with the Senate's liberal approach to the germane issue it was not germane because it set a penalty for non-CHL's and the bill applied only to what a CHL could and could not do. That's why I believe she pulled down her amendment to the amendment.

I have no answer why she offered a state jail felony for carrying openly without a CHL. She has been on our side and made sure our gun bills received a hearing and a vote in her committee. In fact, our bills were sent to her committee so they wouldn't die in Whitmire's committee where they traditionally go.

Chas.

seemed to me her intent was to counter the sticklands saying the amendment was in effect constitutional carry. Basically, "ok, if you want to open carry without a licenses then you risk a 2nd degree felony if you get arrested."

Charles L. Cotton wrote: She has been on our side and made sure our gun bills received a hearing and a vote in her committee. In fact, our bills were sent to her committee so they wouldn't die in Whitmire's committee where they traditionally go.

Chas.

This is what confused me. I'd like to think she was still working on our side but just used a less than desirable tactic. I don't want to think she changed teams midstream like that.

Working their way through the calendar... LOTS of bills for concurrence, but moving quickly.

HB910 is not eligible until 2:40 PM today.. It's near the bottom of the calendar.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 150526.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ELIGIBLE AT 2:40 PM MAY 26, 2015:

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

Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offenses.
1 Amendment, consisting of 1 page total.
Committee Substitute, consisting of 40 pages total.