These Texas Representatives May Have Killed Open Carry - Please Contact Them!

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
For those of you not following the Open Carry political saga in Texas closely, let me give a short summary. Recently, the House voted to send the Open Carry bill to the Senate with the Dutton Amendment (shown below). The Senate stripped out the Dutton Amendment in Committee; but Senator Huffhines later proposed an ALMOST identical amendment from the floor that was accepted.
The two amendments are posted below for your comparison:

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.
Click to expand...

Huffhines 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 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...

The following legislators voted YES for the Dutton Amendment, but when presented with damn near identical language in the Huffhines Amendment, voted NO and have put the passage of Open Carry in serious doubt. If you wish to question your legislator about this hypocrisy, I have done everything I know to do to make it easy for you. If you don’t want to bother with what district you live in, I’ve listed the counties for a quicker reference. All you need to do is click on the email link. Please take just a moment of your time and get involved to ask these legislators why they were OK with the Dutton Amendment language but voted against the Huffhines Amendment language? And please share your responses with the rest of us.

Who is my Texas Representative and District?
Anderson, Charles – Represents McLennan County – District 56 Email
Ashby. Trent – Angeline, Houston, Leon, Madison, San Augustine, Trinity Counties – District 57 Email
Aycock, Jimmie Don – Lampasas, Bell Counties – District 54 Email
Bohac, Dwayne – Harris County – District 138 Email
Bonnen, Dennis – Brazoria, Matagorda Counties – District 25 Email
Bonnen, Greg – Galveston County – District 24 Email
Burkett, Cindy – Dallas County – District 113 Email
Cook, Bryan – Anderson, Freestone, Hill, Navarro Counties – District 8 Email
Dale, Tony – Williamson County – District 136 – Email
Davis, Sarah – Harris County – District 134 – Email
Farney, Marsha – Burnet, Milam, Williamson Counties – District 20 Email
Fletcher, Allan – Harris County – District 130 – Email
Frank, James – Archer, Baylor, Clay, Foard, Know, Wichita Counties – District 69 – Email
Galindo – Bexar County – District 117 – Email
Geren – Tarrant County – District 99 – Email – If there is any Representative on this list who deserves a break, it may be Rep. Geren as he sponsored the NFA Shall Sign bill. However, if I lived in his district, I would still want to know why he voted as he did.
Goldman, Craig – Tarrant County – District 97 Email
Gonzales, Larry – Williamson County – District 52 – Email
Harless, Patricia – Harris County – District 126 – Email
Herrero, Abel – Nueces County – District 34 - Email
King, Ken – Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Castro, Cochran, Donley, Gray, Hale, Hansford, Hemphill, Hockley, Lamb, Lipscomb, Ochiltree, Roberts, Swisher, Yoakum Counties – District 88 - Email
King, Phil – Parker, Wise Counties – District 61 - Email
Koop, Linda – Dallas County – District 102 - Email
Larson, Lyle – Bexar County – District 122 - Email
Meyer, Morgan – Dallas County – District 108 - Email
Miller, Doug – Gillespie, Kendall, Comal Counties – District 73 - Email
Miller, Rick – Fort Bend County – District 26 Email
Moody, Joe – El Paso County – District 78 - Email
Morrison, Geanie – Aransas, Calhoun, DeWitt, Goliad, Refugio, Victoria Counties – District 30 - Email
Murphy, Jim – Harris County – District 133 - Email
Pena, Gilbert – Harris County – District 144 - Email
Sheets, Kenneth – Dallas County – District 107 - Email
Sheffield, J. D. – Erath, Comanche, McCulloch, Mills, Hamilton, Coryell, San Saba, Somvervell –District 59 - Email
Smith, Wayne – Harris County – District 128 - Email
Smithee, John – Dallam, Hartley, Oldham, Deaf Smith, Randall, Parmer – District 86 - Email
Stephenson, Phil – Fort Bend, Jackson, Wharton Counties – District 85 - Email
Villaba, Jason – Dallas County – District 114 - Email
Zerwas, John – Fort Bend County – District 28 - Email

Please share this with other gunboards as well. I have a AR15.com/VBB friendly formatted document in Word I will be happy to share with anyone who wishes to repost this on other forums so you don't even have to do any work there either. Just IM me.
 
I like how they rolled over for the police and threw their actual constituents under the bus. Going back to my policy of never voting for an incumbent.
 
Aren't the Dutton and Huffhines Amendments simply a repeat of the 4th Amendment and may be unnecessary?

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

This just came from the 6th Circuit in may 0f 2015.

The Fourth Amendment protects “the people” from “unreasonable searches and
seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The guarantee does not prevent the police from initiating

“consensual encounter” with individuals—from approaching them on public streets and in
other public places and asking them questions. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200–01
(2002). But it does prevent the police from stopping and frisking individuals in the absence of
“reasonable suspicion” that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 27 (1968).
Click to expand...


Clearly established law required Bright to point to evidence that Northrup may have been
“armed and dangerous.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64 (1968) (emphasis added). Yet all
he ever saw was that Northrup was armed—and legally so. To allow stops in this setting “would
effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons.” United States
v. King, 990 F.2d 1552, 1559 (10th Cir. 1993); accord United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213, 218
(3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531, 540 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Roch,
5 F.3d 894, 899 (5th Cir. 1993).
Click to expand...

So, if I am understanding the above, an officer cannot "stop" an individual simply for open carry of a handgun, so why the need to add it again to the Texas Open Carry Bill?
 
http://kxan.com/2015/05/27/texas-police-groups-oppose-portion-of-open-carry-bill/
As I read about the issue on line, it appears that it's the police chiefs that are the big push back on open carry. They want to be able to force a confrontation to demand ID and if Texas passes this law allowing open carry, then the police wouldn't be able to require armed citizens to ID themselves (show permit) in the absence of them violating any law. Wow, I'm shocked.

I wonder if these police chiefs would agree to a law that would required their officers to provide a photo ID with their DOB, home address and phone numbers to the citizens they stop to question. Of coarse not. Funny how that street only goes one way.
 
steve4102 said:
So, if I am understanding the above, an officer cannot "stop" an individual simply for open carry of a handgun, so why the need to add it again to the Texas Open Carry Bill?
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. There was zero need to add it to this bill. Best case scenario, it is the cherry on top of a sundae. Apparently, the bragging by some that it was "backdoor constitutional carry" appears to have had an effect.
 
Under current Texas law, an officer can ask to see your CHL. The amendment was an attempt to avoid what is going to inevitably happen where OCers are (rightly in my view) intercepted by police responding to calls of "man with gun." As only CHLers have the right under this law to OC pistols, there is no presumption that they are in fact CHLers and thus can be stopped.

or something. I haven't paid major attention once it was affirmed a 30.06 wouldn't be used to stop both OC and CHL, because I have no intent to OC and view people who would do so in suburban or urban environments with suspicion. (Fatman and Snowboots I am looking at you)
 
I really hate injecting politics into the gun issue and refuse to do it. But this OC issue is making me so upset.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely correct. There was zero need to add it to this bill. Best case scenario, it is the cherry on top of a sundae. Apparently, the bragging by some that it was "backdoor constitutional carry" appears to have had an effect.
Click to expand...

If there was "zero Need" to add these amendments to the Bill, then why the need to oppose these Amendments by Law Enforcement?

If the Constitution and case law says they "cannot" then why the concern if it is included in the Bill?

Or, am I all wet and without this amendment, Texas LEO can legally "Stop" and detain anyone that Open Carries without RAS?
 
My encounters with Texas LEOs in which they observe any gun has resulted in the officer making sure I was legally able to have the firearm in my possession. Most particularly rifles in my vehicle. But even a handgun.

So simply put, when I've been in possession of any firearm when interacting with police... I've gotten free background checks.

Additionally I had a home intruder that assaulted me, I never involved a firearm but when the officers responded, they knew I had a CHL so they secured my pistol at the scene and gave it back when finished.
 
As I read about the issue on line, it appears that it's the police chiefs that are the big push back on open carry. They want to be able to force a confrontation to demand ID and if Texas passes this law allowing open carry, then the police wouldn't be able to require armed citizens to ID themselves (show permit) in the absence of them violating any law. Wow, I'm shocked.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, I would blame the individuals and organised open carry demonstrations ,that were deliberately getting into confrontation with the police. Carrying in areas and in a way designed to get people to ring the police and then videoing the police response when the arrive. There are plenty of examples on youtube. It was only a matter of time before the police pushed back.
 
If there was "zero Need" to add these amendments to the Bill, then why the need to oppose these Amendments by Law Enforcement?
Click to expand...

That is one of the most puzzling things about this to me. They are going to a great deal of effort on both sides over a nothing amendment.
 
Senate and House both just voted to adopt the conference committee report. HB910 is on the way to the Governor's desk and he has said he will sign it.

Personally, I didn't think I would ever use open carry but I may have to get a nice BBQ rig just to go visit Acevedo after all this.

Thanks to everyone who chipped in! We still have Campus Carry (SB11) to work on though!
 
I might have to visit Texas or Wichita Falls either one . People in Texas will probably find it to be a non issue like Oklahoma has. Open carry is not for everyone. But it does serve it's purpose. Id does show people that gun people are law abiding . It gets them used to seeing guns and not on some LEO or security persons hip. It will give you a chance to answer questions that might just change some peoples minds about us. It might even bring more people to want to own firearms.
 
Great it passed. Boo that it has the cop-stop clause still in it. Open carry can be used as a reason to be stopped by the cops.
Click to expand...

While there is little doubt that certain police agencies will do so, particularly the big city departments, Terry v. Ohio tells us it's going to cost their cities a whole lot in legal fees and settlements/judgements if they do.

I live in Orange County and asked my sheriff via email whether he planned to direct his deputies to detain open carriers as a matter of policy. He could not/would not give me a direct answer.

It's going to be a bumpy ride. Even the small town LE agencies are panicking at the idea of open carry, and in my opinion many/most agencies are going to initiate interactions with open carriers and demand to see carriers CHLs
regardless of Terry.
 
Last edited:
The rulings in the 4th and 6th circuits only bind to courts in those districts. Since Texas is in the 5th federal judicial circuit, their only effect is one of persuasion.

Texas police know they are fighting a losing battle and it is only a matter of time before the 5th circuit appellate court or SCOTUS rules against them on stopping open carriers without reasonable suspicion, but in my opinion they will keep fighting as long as they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top