NRA Lobbied Against 4th Amendment On HB 910 Amendment In Texas

J

JYD

New member
I find this truly disturbing, and i would hope the NRA explains itself. It has been reported that during a debate recess on the #opencarry bill, the NRA was in the halls urging senators not to vote in favor of an amendment that case law and the 4th circuit has already stated. The open carry of a firearm, in an open carry state, does not create or satisfy reasonable suspicion for a detainment, Just like when you are driving down the road, an officer can not pull you over for no reason.

"Mr Grisham stated that he was informed by a Senator that during a recess on Friday when HB 910 was being debated, the NRA & TSRA were in the halls trying to get Senators NOT to vote for an amendment that states that the open carry of a handgun, by itself, can not be a reason to stop someone and check for a permit."

http://junkyarddog911.blogspot.com/2015/05/nra-supposedly-lobbies-against-fourth.html
 
I wouldn't consider Grisham a credible source, especially when he fails to provide the name of the senator in question.

That said, there was an amendment to the bill [pdf], stating this:

Sec.A411.2049.AA 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
Click to expand...

That passed. I doubt it would have done so if the NRA were opposing it. There were several other amendments proposed, but they seem to focus on semantics in the penal code.

If Mr. Grisham would like to provide actual proof, I'd be interested in hearing it. Otherwise, I assume he's still on his anti-NRA tear. Let's not forget that this is the guy whose actions were criticized for jeopardizing open carry in the Texas legislature.
 
Looks like the usual wink/wink-nudge/nudge conspiracy stuff from the usual unreliable sources with axes to grind and personal agendas. I always apply a substantial discount to anything involving anonymous sources and things overheard in the hallways.
 
"Bombshell allegation", very unlikely. More like Alex Jones style conspiracy trash.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, the amendment in question was hotly debated before finally being passed by the Senate. The NRA could have been concerned that it was offered as a "poison pill" amendment to sink the entire open carry bill, especially since it prohibited a practice that had already been ruled Unconstitutional. :rolleyes:
 
Yep. Two people from the same problematic organization.
Click to expand...

Tom, on this we disagree. Open Carry Texas is not Open Carry Tarrant County.
Open Carry Tarrant County is the group which has been causing the trouble and giving us the black eye.

I won't condone the lack of cooperation from Open Carry Texas regarding the demonstrations after the round table you linked to.
However, Open Carry Tarrant County have been making the news with their "demonstrations" much more often. These are the folks that refused to leave an elected official's office in the capitol. They are also the folks that have been badgering the City of Arlington, its police and citizens.
 
Last edited:
However, Open Carry Tarrant County have been making the news with their "demonstrations" much more often.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing. Grisham supported the Tarrant guys. The NRA issued a statement (later retracted) condemning reckless long gun open carry. Grisham went on a rant on Facebook (now deleted) in which he decried the NRA for selling out gun owners and advised people to cut up their NRA membership cards.

He also accused Charles Cotton and Alice Tripp of the TSRA of being in bed with Moms Demand Action. It wasn't until the backlash started that he decided to moderate his stance.

Are Open Carry Tarrant and Open Carry Texas two separate organizations? They are now, but the bad impression has been made. That's hard to reverse, and Grisham was a part of that.
 
I can't speak to what TSRA or NRA said to Senators in backrooms; but there was a lot of disagreement over the Huffhines Amendment. Several reliable pro-gun Senators opposed it, and several anti-gun Senators supported it.

There was apparently some type of backroom deal* where in return for the Dutton Amendment being stripped out of HB910 (Open Carry) by the Senate, the House would pass Campus Carry (SB11) which was stuck in Calendars. By adding the Dutton Amendment back in from the floor, Sen. Huffhines apparently endangered that deal; but could have sent Open Carry straight to the Governor's desk.

However Sen. Huffhines screwed up and the amendment was practically identical; but not actually identical. As a result, HB910 went back to the House and is still waiting on a concurrence vote with two days left in session. The House passed Campus Carry anyway; but with 3 amendments - meaning it is on life support in the Senate and even if it does pass, it will provide fewer protections than the original bill.

Grisham knows all of that, or should know it.

*There have been a couple of posts from key players alluding to this; but no outright statement as to the specifics of any deal yet.
 
He also accused Charles Cotton and Alice Tripp of the TSRA of being in bed with Moms Demand Action. It wasn't until the backlash started that he decided to moderate his stance.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty ironic considering Grisham threw OCT's support behind a MDA Amendment to HB910 to make any "gunbuster" sign a valid notice to CHLs, in return for removing the penalty.
 
The NRA could have been concerned that it was offered as a "poison pill" amendment to sink the entire open carry bill, especially since it prohibited a practice that had already been ruled Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Or after seeing the Fourth and Sixth Circuits expressly rule in their favor, the NRA saw a good chance to hang Chief Acevedo of Austin with his own rope and didn't want to lose that by having the Texas legislature make it double-illegal.

Of course, if gun owners can come up with any explanation where the civil rights organization that has protected them for 200+ years engages in a complex conspiracy to sell them out, that explanation immediately becomes the favorite one.
 
And after passing the Senate twice and the House once, HB910 just failed its concurrence vote, specifically because of the Huffhines/Dutton amendment.

Smart work C.J., you win again.
 
By the way, for the record, here is the Dutton Amendment, stricken by the Senate, and the Huffhines Amendment that replaced it:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/senateamendana/pdf/HB00910A.pdf#navpanes=0

Dutton amendment, as passed by the House

DUTTON said:
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.
Click to expand...


Huffines amendment, as passed by the Senate

HUFFHINES said:
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.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the language is identical in effect; but not word for word. The following Representatives voted FOR the Dutton Amendment.

Amendment No. 3 was adopted by (Record 295): 133 Yeas, 10 Nays, 1
Present, not voting.
Yeas — Allen; Alonzo; Anderson, C.; Anderson, R.; Ashby; Aycock; Bell;
Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Burns; Burrows;
Button; Canales; Capriglione; Clardy; Coleman; Cook; Craddick; Crownover;
Cyrier; Dale; Darby; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Dutton; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Flynn; Frank; Frullo; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; Guerra; Guillen; Harless; Herrero; Howard; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Israel; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, K.; King, P.; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Koop; Krause; Kuempel; Landgraf; Larson; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Lucio; Ma´rquez; Martinez; McClendon; Metcalf; Meyer; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Morrison; Mun˜oz; Murphy; Murr; Naishtat; Neva´rez; Oliveira; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Paul; Pen˜a; Phelan; Phillips; Pickett; Raney; Raymond; Reynolds; Riddle; Rinaldi; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.; Romero; Rose; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Sheets; Sheffield; Simmons; Simpson; Smith; Smithee; Spitzer; Springer; Stephenson; Stickland; Thompson, E.; Thompson, S.; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; White, J.; White, M.; Workman; Wray; Zedler; Zerwas.

Nays — Alvarado; Anchia; Collier; Gonza´lez; Gutierrez; Hernandez; Johnson; Moody; Turner, C.; Wu.
Present, not voting — Mr. Speaker(C).
Absent, Excused — Miles; Price.
Absent — Dukes; Farias; Martinez Fischer.
Click to expand...

Today, the following people who were presented with the almost identical language of the Huffhines Amendment, voted as listed:

RV# 1585 — Unofficial Totals: 63 Yeas, 79 Nays, 2 Present, not voting


Yeas - Anderson, R.; Bell; Burns; Burrows; Button; Canales; Capriglione; Clardy; Craddick; Cyrier; Darby; Dutton; Elkins; Faircloth; Fallon; Flynn; Frullo; Huberty; Hughes; Hunter; Isaac; Kacal; Keffer; Keough; King, S.; King, T.; Klick; Krause; Landgraf; Laubenberg; Leach; Longoria; Lozano; Martinez; Metcalf; Murr; Oliveira; Otto; Paddie; Parker; Paul; Phelan; Phillips; Raney; Raymond; Rinaldi; Sanford; Schaefer; Schofield; Schubert; Shaheen; Simmons; Simpson; Spitzer; Springer; Stickland; Thompson, S.; Tinderholt; Turner, E.S.; White, J.; White, M.; Wray; Zedler

Nays - Allen; Alonzo; Alvarado; Anchia; Anderson, C.; Ashby; Aycock; Bernal; Blanco; Bohac; Bonnen, D.; Bonnen, G.; Burkett; Coleman; Collier; Cook; Dale; Davis, S.; Davis, Y.; Deshotel; Farias; Farney; Farrar; Fletcher; Frank; Galindo; Geren; Giddings; Goldman; Gonzales; González; Guerra; Gutierrez; Harless; Hernandez; Herrero; Howard; Israel; Johnson; King, K.; King, P.; Koop; Larson; Márquez; Martinez Fischer; Meyer; Miles; Miller, D.; Miller, R.; Minjarez; Moody; Morrison; Muñoz; Murphy; Naishtat; Nevárez; Peña; Pickett; Price; Reynolds; Riddle; Rodriguez, E.; Rodriguez, J.; Romero; Rose; Sheets; Sheffield; Smith; Smithee; Stephenson; Thompson, E.; Turner, C.; Turner, S.; VanDeaver; Villalba; Vo; Walle; Wu; Zerwas

Present, not voting - Kuempel(C); Mr. Speaker

Absent, Excused - Lucio; Workman

Absent - Crownover; Dukes; Guillen; McClendon
Click to expand...

If you live in Texas and your Representative voted YES for Dutton and NO today, you need to write them and ask them why they changed their mind and how they can justify being a hypocritic something-something over that minor change in language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top