If the open carry crazies will settle down and act like normal folks, it will quickly be a nonissue. Virginia has always had open carry with no permits of any kind needed (no law forbidding it was ever passed) and nobody gives it a second thought. Most open carry is by hunters, farmers and sometimes hikers for protection against snakes, bears, wolves and other dangerous critters (including poachers, trespassers, etc.).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
These Texas Representatives May Have Killed Open Carry - Please Contact Them!
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
There is still U.S. v. Roch in the 5th Cir. from 1993, which while not as directly on point as the recent Sixth Circuit case, still has very good language for us.
Machineguntony
New member
Has the governor signed it yet?
Once signed, when does open carry become permissible?
Next session, maybe they'll look at the issue of constitutional OC. By then, maybe our friends at OC Tarrant County will have learned the art of civil discourse.
Once signed, when does open carry become permissible?
Next session, maybe they'll look at the issue of constitutional OC. By then, maybe our friends at OC Tarrant County will have learned the art of civil discourse.
Double Naught Spy
New member
It will go into effect January 1 once signed.
Bartholomew Roberts said: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.
Maybe this will help clear up some of this confusion.
http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/SJRNL/84R/PDF/84RSJ05-22-F.PDF
1894-1895.
Senator V. Taylor:ii Thank you, Mr.iPresident. Senator Estes, I just want to be clear
about the law. Whether or not this amendment goes on, it is my understanding that
someone who is doing something that requires a license, that police may not stop
them to verify that they have a license. Is that your understanding?
Senator Estes:iiYes, Senator. I am advised that that is settled constitutional law.
Senator V. Taylor:iiOkay. So, the law of the land, the law of America, if someone is
doing something that requires a license, a police officer cannot stop that person and
say, I want to see your license, whether it s driving a motorcycle or a commercial ’
vehicle or a car or whatever that activity may be.
Senator Estes:iiUnless they have reasonable suspicion.
Senator V. Taylor:ii Okay, so reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.
Correct?
Senator Estes:iiThat s correct. ’
Senator V. Taylor:ii And so, carrying, openly carrying a handgun, if they see
someone, that does not constitute probable cause?
Senator Estes:iiIf this law is enacted.
Senator V. Taylor:ii Right, if this law is enacted.
Senator Estes:iiYes. That s correc
Senator V. Taylor:ii Okay, so, I just think there was some confusion, as I ve heard ’
different people discuss this, but whether or not, if this amendment goes on, if it
doesn t go on, settled case law, federal law for all the country is what you and I have ’
just discussed.
Senator Estes:iiThat s correct. And let me explain, when I said that I did not want ’
this amendment to go on and I would resist it, I talked about confusion. Let me
explain the confusion I m talking about. If we put this in statute, then it gives the ’
chance for judges to interpret what these words say. We all know judges can interpret
things where we think they have the right interpretation. We ve seen cases where we ’
think they have the wrong interpretation. So, it s unnecessary and it adds to confusion, ’
but I think during my layout, I had, I ll just read this. I had scratched it out, the reason ’
was for time, I wanted to be conscious of our time here, but since we re taking a long ’
time working on this, let me read it. This is what was in my talking points. While I
have no problem with adding the Dutton amendment back into the bill, I fear that it
would erode support for the bill in this body. That may turn out to not be true, but I
would prefer that we not do it. But with Representative Dutton s amendment on or off ’
of this bill, this is still a good bill. It just adds an element of confusion or could add an
element of confusion in the judges ’ interpretation of this statute. So, I think
everybody, if I may just say, kind of chill a little bit here. Okay, I will be, and I will be
telling you, as everybody gets a chance to talk as long as they want, I will be on this
amendment, when we get to it, after everyone s had their say, be leaving this ’
amendment to the will of the body, but I will be voting no. If it goes on, I will
continue to advocate for this bill. So, any more questions?
So apparently Senator Estes, wanted it removed because he was worried that "judges" would interpret this Amendment incorrectly and that this Amendment was completely unnecessary.
Senator Estes' protestations notwithstanding, that is PRECISELY what many Texas police departments intend to do. They weren't pushing so persistently to have the amendment removed out of a concern over vagueness or redundancy vis a vis federal case law - they do not see this as settled law! Have any of you read Acevedo's testimony and public comments? CLEARLY he believes his officers have the right to stop and demand a license from anyone they choose.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
So apparently Senator Estes, wanted it removed because he was worried that "judges" would interpret this Amendment incorrectly and that this Amendment was completely unnecessary.
Maybe. I don't think that accounts for the number of Representatives who changed their vote. I think there was more going on. Look at Senator Huffman's on-the-record speech in favor of her poison pill amendment to Huffhines amendment. I don't think she believed a single word of what she was saying, she just wanted that Huffhines Amendment gone. So I'm a little reluctant to rely on the record too much.