Texas Open Carry Is Imminent

jtmckinney

New member
Sounds like it is truly a done deal, waiting on Governor Abbots signature.

I had this in my inbox this morning from Texas Law Shield.
Texas Law Shield Program Attorney Edwin Walker returns to provide an update on the Open Carry law on its way to Governor Abbotts desk and how it will impact your license to carry a handgun in Texas.

Also was a link to this You Tube video where one of their lawyers talked specifically about this new law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSFEfiCvFl0

In the other thread it was discussed about the amendments that were defeated that would have kept Police from detaining and asking for identification and license from those open carrying. It was declared by some that that was already Un constitutional. The lawyer in this video says that the Police can detain and ask for ID and license under this law.

Myself and co-workers had a very respectful discussion about this a couple days ago and we all had good and bad opinions about this with no clear consensus about how we felt about this.

Hopefully the above video has some good info we can all use.

Have a great day!
James
 
Just remember, it doesn't take effect until Jan 1st 2016, must be in a shoulder or belt holster, and the person must have a CHL on their person at the time.
 
I wonder if Walker read the minutes of the Senate debate on the Dutton Amendment before he made this video.

http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/SJRNL/84R/PDF/84RSJ05-22-F.PDF

What I gather from the Senate debate is that the Amendment was removed because it would have been redundant and not needed, as Federal law and settle case law says that a Police Officer may not stop and ask for a licensed based only on the fact that he/she is legally carrying a firearm. It was not removed to authorize LEO to stop and ask for a license. :confused:
 
steve4102, I had some of the same thoughts. Not sure what to think about that part of it, maybe it is to advise Texas Law Shield members to comply to the officers request and if they want to file a Civil Rights complaint they can do so later. If that was their intent they should have been up front about it.

When me an my co-workers discussed this none had a clear totally for or against thing to say about an officer being able to detain someone only for the reason of carrying openly. We agreed this could be abused but also there could be times it would be appropriate.

Gotta go to work.
Everyone have a great day!
James
 
I wonder if Walker read the minutes of the Senate debate on the Dutton Amendment before he made this video.



http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/SJRNL/84R/PDF/84RSJ05-22-F.PDF



What I gather from the Senate debate is that the Amendment was removed because it would have been redundant and not needed, as Federal law and settle case law says that a Police Officer may not stop and ask for a licensed based only on the fact that he/she is legally carrying a firearm. It was not removed to authorize LEO to stop and ask for a license. :confused:


How about this thought. With the amendment, a 4th amendment case now would be at the state level. Without it, it remains a federal case. So, in removing this amendment, they shortened the chain of appeal and made it tougher to even file a 4th amendment case. That is good it that it keeps the legal system from getting bogged down, bad in that it reduces the options of a claimant.

Redundant? Yes
Useful to claimant? Yes, it would have been.
 
Stopping for license

Can someone cite the Case law that states a person cannot be stopped solely to make sure they have a license?

Several have mentioned it in reference to the amendments that were purposed to this bill but I have been able to find the case law with my feeble goggle fu.
 
steve4102 said:
...This is from the 6th Circuit.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0092p-06.pdf

Is there anything similar from the 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States?...
There two relevant Sixth Circuit cases: Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Department (Sixth Circuit, 14-4050, 2015) and Embody v. Ward (Sixth Circuit, 11-5963, 2012). Embody was actually cited in passing in Northrup (slip op., at 6).

Embody was also a civil suit following what Embody claimed was a wrongful detention for an investigation related to his open carrying of a firearm. But the Sixth Circuit found the temporary detention of Embody to satisfy Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirements because of the nature of the gun carried by Embody, Embody's conduct, and the totality of the surrounding circumstances.

So it appears that in the Sixth Circuit, at least, openly carrying a gun would not, by itself, justify a stop (Nothrup). But other surrounding circumstances, in addition to the openly carrying of a gun, could (Embody).

Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, and I don't know if the Fifth Circuit has looked at this issue.
 
THIS is the reason the amendment is/was necessary to prevent harassing/preemptive stops by Texas LEOS.

Texas 46.02 prohibits carry of a handgun. It provides probable cause for any Texas law enforcement officer to detain anyone he/she observes carrying a handgun to determine that the possessor has a valid CHL.

Texas' handgun law provides a defense/exemption to 46.02, but is not an exception and therefore we're likely to see very determined activity in certain areas to hassle OC'rs to death. I don't know why in the House testimony this was not made clear. One could be forgiven for thinking the intent all along was to kill the amendment.
 
Texas 46.02 prohibits carry of a handgun. It provides probable cause for any Texas law enforcement officer to detain anyone he/she observes carrying a handgun to determine that the possessor has a valid CHL.

Yes it does. And I'll wager there will be a federal challenge to that sometime in the first 3 years open carry is legal.
No, I do not intend to be the test case. :D
 
Yes it does. And I'll wager there will be a federal challenge to that sometime in the first 3 years open carry is legal.
I'm hoping for something faster paced in Texas state courts to possibly void this part of Section 46.02 as being moot. A man can dream, can't he?

No, I do not intend to be the test case.
Me neither. I do not have unlimited funds to tilt at this particular windmill!
 
Rickyrick- It's sad to say, but my guess is "Yes". There are those who will carry whatever they think will get them the most wow points, facebook likes, or whatever. And some, will do it for nothing more than the "Hey look at me & give me attention!" factor. Somebody, somewhere will do it.
 
I'm interested to know if anyone will attempt to open carry an ar pistol

It may have been this kind of "what if" thinking that got the amendments killed.

Myself and friends have joked about what guns and holsters we will carry but it was all in fun. I was joking I need to get a pimped out holster for my Super Red Hawk with pistol scope.

Let's hope that in a few years we look back on this and be able to say "much about nothing". Or at least that is what we here from folks that live in states where open carry has been the law of the land from the beginning.
 
Back
Top