Previous Post
Next Post

Texas star (courtesy

ShootingtheBull410 writes:

By a margin of 79 to 63, The Texas house rejected concurring with the Senate on 84(R) HB 910. That’s the Senate version of the licensed open carry bill that the House originally sent to the Senate. The Senate stripped out an amendment barring police officers from stopping open carriers to question them about/examine their Concealed Handgun License (without any other indication that a crime was being committed), then added it back. But there were a few words that were slightly different. The vote today was whether to accept the Senate’s version, or to send it to Conference Committee to hammer out the differences. The House voted to reject accepting the Senate’s modified version, and sent it to Committee . . .

The move came after the police unions and organizations lit up the representative’s inboxes and phones and demanded that they change and remove the amendment. A lot of representatives responded by changing their votes from yea to nay.

However, as was pointed out to them repeatedly, what the police are asking for has already been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. At least twice, federal courts have ruled on this exact same issue and declared that stopping an open carrier to demand their papers is a 4th Amendment violation of the US Constitution.

So what we have, in effect, is that a bunch of representatives changed their vote to support the police’s claims that they want to be able to conduct unlawful searches of citizens, in defiance of the 4th Amendment. Despite a passioned plea by Rep. Dutton (the original author of the amendment) who made that very clear.

Licensed open carry in the Lone Star State is still alive. It could potentially be filibustered and die in committee, or it might not. We’ll know sometime by Sunday midnight. Governor Abbott could, potentially, call a special session and name HB910 as one of the items that he designates as a priority. Whether that WILL happen or not, remains to be seen.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I’m not surprised by this at all. Texas has a reputation as a “free” state but it isn’t. It’s just more often conservative type beliefs tend to cross path’s with liberty more often. Police in Texas are to be feared, they guard their power and are paranoid about losing it. Not too mention that that Houston, San Antonio and Austin are quite socialist in nature and consider themselves self governing city states. I’ve never open carried a rifle but now I fear I must as our government will continue to put it’s boot on our collective necks.

    • Yup were a police state and I want to know the “republicans” who voted against this.

      Worthless POS’s all of them.

      That and our worthless Lt. Governor being a good little stooge to his cronies in the DPS.

  2. Why is it always a major concern when law enforcement officers’ lives are in jeopardy but never a concern that law abiding tax paying citizens’ lives are in jeopardy???

      • Dev you got it right. My life is as important as our lawbreaking policemen. I guess thay cant count to 4 . That meaning 4th amendment . Rep you are going to pay a severe price for this. We have the names who voted no Abbott we have your nane also. All of you bowed down to policeman now at election time you will bow down to we the people and we will tell you get the hell out of our lives. Politicians you have made a grave mistake. I never carred a rifle be for now on ever were I go its going to be with me. I hope now ypu clueless law enforcement officers try to stop us now. You started this war.

        • IMHO, that’s part of an effective response… if the Texas legislature won’t allow y’all to legally open carry handguns then hordes of people ought to start OCing long guns everywhere that they can.

          I didn’t OC much in Ohio prior to when we got CHL legislation. Before then, I usually concealed. Once we had licensing, I started OCing because I wanted to exercise the right and not just the privilege. Now, I OC everyday. Perhaps if our latest constitutional concealed carry bill passes, I’ll conceal more; or maybe not. When police departments started harassing people for OCing long guns, many of us started OCing long guns. If government leaves us alone, we tend to be peaceful and try to cause few waves. But, when they push us, we try to let them know through immediate action.

    • Because law enforcement officers do the bidding of the ruling class whereas we are simply a “resource” to be exploited.

      • Yeppers. I’m not surprised in the least, even Florida’s screwed things up royally as far as OC is concerned. Again, unsurprising that Fl. HB 405 (Campus Carry) died with nary a whimper a month ago.

        Gunshine State, indeed…

        Frankly, I’m pretty sick of the communistas & fascistas that have been running the show in the U.S. for longer than I care to consider. *Pounds fist on table* Where are the real Americans here? (to steal a quote bandied around by quite a few over the decades in the Politburo during debates)

    • I love the “real” Texans in Texas, but this state is going to hell in a handbasket. I have the distinct feeling that this was never going to pass. This is unacceptable.

      I hope that everyone who has commented here will join us at

      • “I hope that everyone who has commented here will join us at oathkeepers”

        I hope you are not serious about that statement and I don’t appreciate the pandering. I am sure the serfs that just objected to, and are actively denying the right of Texas Citizens claim to be members of the oathekeepers. That organization is full of wolves that got full of eating the sheep, and are now regretting the indigestion in their souls, for their cowardice when employed as law enforcement officers of the corrupt. Nazi are still paying for their weakness of character following evil orders.

        Real OATHKEEPERS are already a member of a club, and dues have been paid in blood for the membership, which doesn’t expire in an honorable man until death for that son of liberty.

        • I am completely serious, and I hardly think that the term pandering applies here. I can guarantee you that none of LEO activists opposing the OC Bill and amendments are Oathkeepers, figuratively or literally.

          You obviously known absolutely zip about the organization, its membership or its goals. The majority of members are veterans and civilian defenders of the Constitution. What about the soldiers who REFUSED to participate in door to door confiscations during Katrina? What about Law Enforcement officers who have been ostracized for exposing corruption and wrongdoing within their own departments? Are they all NAZI’s too?

          It sounds like you have a case of rampant self-righteousness. What blood have YOU bled in the struggle for Liberty? I would really like to know. We must fight them on every front, and a HUGE part of that is taking back the rapidly changing culture within the Military and Law Enforcement. Every man in a uniform is NOT the enemy. Do you want soldiers and Police who are loyal to the cause of liberty? Without minions and henchmen, the banksters are toothless. Our billboard campaigns around military bases have been incredibly successful, and the Oathkeepers have put ARMED boots on the ground in several situations now to protect the rights of citizens from government abuse and over reach, or where establishment loyal Law Enforcement has refused to protect the property and rights of citizens in need.

          So please, spend some time reading the blog and see what we are really about instead of what you obviously have incorrectly assumed.

        • Same here, except mine is a Dem rat-bastard. Yes, I live in Austin, so a Dem reps me. Grrr.

        • And…. I just got an e-mail response, and then a telephone call. He’s saying it was a mistake and he asked the clerk to change his vote to yes. Wonder if anybody else is telling their constituents the same story? One thing tho, Ashby did co-author the House OC bill. Maybe the explanation is righteous.

      • At least mine voted “yea”. But yeah, it looks kind of grim to get this passed this legislature.

      • Here, I made it easy for everyone to see. TX Open Carry Wall of Shame 2015:

        The shocking thing is that all GOP reps but two who voted for HB910 a month ago voted against concurring with this identical bill yesterday with a deadline just around the corner. Procedure abuse, plain and simple.

    • Here are all the scum bags that voted no:

      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

  3. The whole officers lives in jeopardy thing is a canard. It’s the gun they can’t/don’t see that is the most dangerous to them in the course of doing their jobs.

  4. More political shenanigans. The senate amendment is materially identical to the house amendment.

    Sorry, Texans. Just like in the US Congress, you need new leadership. The Establishment sucks.

    • You’re either ignorant of, or are simply ignoring Section 23 of the Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution which gives the Legislature latitude to include the amendment in pending open carry legislation, or not.

      Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

      Since Section 23 is so straight forward and unequivocal, any notion that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit would declare it unconstitutional on 2nd amendment grounds is pure fantasy.

      The apples and oranges comparisons to the 4th Circuit decision on open carry does not change the Texas constitution or the ability of the Texas Legislature to create law requiring that a person must be licensed for open carry, so suggesting that current Texas concealed handgun carry law and pending open carry law which may or may not give law enforcement the ability to verify licensing is some sort of subterfuge to deny the rights of Texans to keep and bear arms under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions is ridiculous drivel.

      • And you appear to be ignorant of the point that I was making. I never claimed that either house didn’t have the right to add the amendment – and in fact, I fully support the amendment; rather, I claimed that both houses included an amendment that was materially identical. Both houses claimed to want the same thing. And yet, because the two houses included materially identical amendments with minor wording differences, they are using that to run the clock out on the entire bill. Political shenanigans.

        Most of what you wrote really had absolutely nothing to do with my comment. But in response, I’ll just say: shall not be infringed is pretty darn unambiguous, regardless of what the black-robed tyrants in any particular circuit opine.

        • Predictable, I’m beginning to wonder if you and the Nutty Buckeye aren’t one in the same. Deceptively cherry picking the words “shall not be infringed” to twist the 2nd Amendment into a meaning which suits you might give you comfort, but it’s worthless bluster in any intelligent discussion to counter the deliberate strategies of anti gun liberals who similarly deceive and twist with the words “A well regulated Militia”.

          • Hey, John: apparently I’m your third (or is it fourth by now) identity!

            I’m still in Dayton (Troy, actually) for one more night before this project wraps up. Maybe we should meet and take a photo, to set poor Ted’s mind at ease?

        • Lol. He’d probably claim that it was shooped but I’m not posting tits and timestamp just for him. 😉

          Seriously though, if you want to meet up and RF or one of the gang will give you my email, I’ll send you my telephone number. I’m about an hour or so from Dayton and could break away from the farm today to meet up.

        • @Chip Bennett: Sometimes I’m slow catching on… lol. It dawned on me that your email address is already accessible so I sent you an email.

  5. Was this little “legislative technique” predicatable or what?

    First, I “open carried” in Texas for over 20 years. Second, I have lobbied the state legislature (Representatives and Senators) for criminal and administrative laws.

    Now, the “stall” of the open carry law was almost inevitable for several reasons……..not the least of which was the approach that the open carry advocates took to achieve the passage of the law. The image of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum holding their ’15’s in an urban restaurant was NOT the way to achieve passage of the bill (although Mom’s Demand Action loved it, since they posted it on their website) Nor was holding a “carry-in” on the steps of the State House a good idea, particularly when it resulted in a few persons of questionable mental stability threatening and attempting to intimidate state lawmakers.

    Open carry could have sailed through the legislature. I know that capable, experienced individuals who had worked with the legislature were willing to donate their time and skills to the cause, but the persons who most desired the passage were not interested. Instead, they were assured by the fact that both gubenatorial candidates committed to signing open carry legislation. (incidentally, the losing candidate admitted that she was lying when made the commitment)

    Texas is an unusual state. Despite the fact that it is primarily urban in nature now, the traditions of Texas politics are still in vogue at the legislature. Done properly, Texas legislators can be persuaded to eat green cheese by the light of the moon while simultaneously singing “Beautiful Texas”. But, they cannot be forced, intimidated, or even shamed in passing laws……or anything else…….including drinking free beer.

    If open carry passes the legislature, it will be because the members of both houses DESIRE that it be passed. I think the odds are against it. I believe that there are benefits to open carry, however, I prefer the tactical and strategic advantages of concealment.

    A bit of concealment……….and touching all the bases would have ensured a positive outcome legislatively, methinks.

    Perhaps the advocates will snap on that path……… time around.

    • Too long have we fallen prey to the law and order nature of what Texas has become where lawmen are all powerful. While the establishment politicos hide behind stock phrases flags that mean nothing to them and the blood of men who died at the Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto and all the other places to free Texas from Mexico.

      Its disgusting how we’ve fallen into another machine politic state and a machine legal (not justice) system, when we’re the ones who coined the phrase “Come and Take It”

      It’s shameful.

      We need some outlaw and rebellious types who will cut the establishment to its core.

      • Doomguy: It appears that those radical types you mentioned are probably the very ones that got the open carry bill castrated and then dumped. Too often those that are so sure they are right and have no idea of how politics really works screw up the very thing they think they are supporting.

    • Perhaps the advocates will snap on that path……… time around.

      That’s extremely unlikely. The advocates are convinced, rightly or wrongly, that they aren’t the problem, it’s everyone else. Furthermore any suggestion to them that a change in tactics might meet with better results is met with an attitude of “how dare you tell us how to exercise our rights.” Even if you didn’t phrase it as an imperative.

      • Are they wrong? I think we’re being quite tolerant in not hoisting every politician who votes against our rights from the nearest tree. The reality is that you don’t get rights back by asking for them. Washington didn’t appeal to the British, he shot them.

    • If people OCing long guns were such a concern then please tell my why the legislature didn’t write something to ban OC of long guns?

      If they were really, really, really so concerned about long gun OC then they would’ve gotten behind handgun OC because people would be more likely to OC handguns when it is legal since most of them were OCing long guns only because that’s all they could legally OC. Pointing to OCers as the reason is a flimsy excuse for tyranny.

    • it will be because the members of both houses DESIRE that it be passed.

      Your statement indicates that Texans live their lives according to government’s desires and that your statehouse doesn’t represent the People. It sounds an awful lot like living under a king; By your leave, Sire. That’s messed up! Hopefully, it isn’t really like that in Texas. 🙁

  6. House members objected to Sen. Huffines’ added language barring police officers from stopping open carriers to question them about/examine their Concealed Handgun License (without any other indication that a crime was being committed).

    79 House members are in dire need of having the 4th Amendment reiterated to them.

    • They need shook down on sight since they are probably up to something since they are politicians. They should be audited automatically to see how much Bloomer money they got.

  7. Leave it to our RINO Reps. To screw us over. We will remember this come voting time. So much for expecting our gov. to do what we put them there to do. Sad day for us Texan’s.

  8. I called this one. There was too much confusion as to where the bill went after the senate voted. I knew there would be trouble when it went back to the house. Too many opportunities to be a weasel.

  9. I watched the testimony, and I think there are several corrections that need to be made in this report.

    “By a margin of 79 to 63, the Texas House has just rejected 84(R) HB 910, the open carry bill sent to it by the Senate.”

    That is not, strictly speaking, what happened. The Texas house rejected concurring the Senate version of the bill. The House sent the bill to the Senate, the Senate stripped out an amendment, then added it back in, but there were apparently a few words that were slightly, slightly different. The vote today was whether to accept the Senate’s version, or to send it to Conference Committee to hammer out the differences. They voted to reject accepting the Senate’s modified version, and sent it to Committee.

    It is not rejected. It is still alive. It could potentially be filibustered and die in committee, or it might not. We’ll know sometime by Sunday midnight.

    “House members objected to Sen. Huffines’ added language barring police officers from stopping open carriers to question them about/examine their Concealed Handgun License (without any other indication that a crime was being committed).”

    Again, while sort of true, this is completely untrue. The HOUSE is the one that added the amendment. The house voted to approve the bill, including the amendment, 133-10. The Senate stripped the amendment out, but Huffines was able to get it voted back on. Unfortunately, there were some minor word changes, and that meant that the modified version needed to be accepted by the House, or sent to committee to iron out the changes.

    Now, what actually happened is the police unions and organizations lit up the representative’s inboxes and phones and demanded that they change and remove the amendment. So a lot of representatives did change their votes.

    “The House made the move under pressure from law enforcement groups who claimed the proviso would put lives in jeopardy.”
    This part is true. They did wave the bloody shirt, saying that it would put officers lives in jeopardy, neighbors lives in jeopardy, parishioners lives in jeopardy, citizens lives in jeopardy. It was breathtaking to behold the hyperbole.

    However, as was pointed out to them repeatedly, what the police are asking for has already been ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. At least twice, federal courts have ruled on this exact same issue and declared that it is a 4th Amendment violation of the US Constitution.

    So what we have, in effect, is that a bunch of representatives changed their vote to support the police’s claims that they want to be able to conduct unlawful searches of citizens, in defiance of the 4th Amendment. Despite a passioned plea by Rep. Dutton (the original author of the amendment) who made that very clear.

    “The bill now goes to Committee.”
    Correct. Where Senator Ellis has said that he can easily filibuster it, and threatened to do so.

    “If open carry fails, [partial] gun rights restoration must wait another two years for consideration.”
    Not necessarily true. Governor Abbott could, potentially, call a special session and name HB910 as one of the items that he designates as a priority. Whether that WILL happen or not, remains to be seen.

    • Abbot hasn’t stuck his head out to lead yet. There’s no way he starts after the session is over.

    • So what we have, in effect, is that a bunch of representatives changed their vote to support the police’s claims that they want to be able to conduct unlawful searches of citizens, in defiance of the 4th Amendment. Despite a passioned plea by Rep. Dutton (the original author of the amendment) who made that very clear.

      As we have stated on this forum so many times, politicians and bureaucrats who are willing to infringe one Amendment in the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights are willing to infringe on all of them. Texas politicians and bureaucrats (law enforcement officers in this case) are no different.

      • What more do you expect? This is the same body that passed an amendment to yesterday’s ethics bill that made it illegal to record Texas congress members in public without consent.

    • The filibuster is precisely why it was sent to conference committee. This bill is dead probably forever.

  10. House members should be stopped by LEO on sight and given drug and booze tests and checked for criminal activity because they are politicians.

    • Funny you should say that. They rejected an amendment to the ethics bill that required them to take drug tests.

  11. Senator Huffines injected a poison pill into the open carry bill, knowing full well it would ignite the anti-gun and police special interests. This is pretty typical example of the way politics in Texas works. Too many Texas Republicans are statists and all-to-comfortable with being members of the political class. Amendments like this gives them the cover they need to vote against something like open carry, which most statists oppose, while telling their constituents that they favor open carry . . . but . . . These are the same guys who support RINO Joe Strauss as Speaker of The House. There are no moderates, just statists. They have to go.

    • The Huffines amendment was identical to the Dutton amendment in spirit, and only off by 1 word. The House passed a bill that was identical thinking the senate would kill it, and now all those votes have magically changed to no now that the bill was about to be signed into law. House and senate played hot potato on who would be blamed for it not passing. Senate called their bluff, and the house folded.

    • You could just as easily blame Senator Huffman for taking Dutton out of HB 910 in her committee. If she had left HB 910 intact then the Senate would have passed it as received. Then it would have gone to Abbot for signature. Why doesn’t anyone blame her?

  12. Tell you what Texas, I’ll trade open carry (unlicensed) for 30rd magazines. Any takers?

    • I’m sure glad you don’t speak for me, or I’d be ready to fire your ass.

      Loss of open carry would completely deny the right to bear arms to certain individuals, such as visitors from out of state that don’t have reciprocity agreements, or people too broke to pay all the fees for a CCW. You, on the other hand, CAN find a different gun and use it, or live with the mags you already have. It’s also very easy to evade our law, but if you open carry a pistol in a place where it’s completely illegal, you are prima facie breaking the low.

      You want our almost totally unenforceable ban on 30 rounders lifted in return for giving up open carry, move to Texas yourself.

      • Loss of Open Carry in CO would definitely make Shooter’s Grill in Rifle not as much fun. 😉

        • Naaah, because people could still carry in the restaurant by permission of the owner, and that particular owner is One Of Us.

        • Sure…INSIDE. But, what about getting to/from the car, etc?

          Something kind of cool about hanging out on the street there watching people come and go, and window shop, etc, OC-ing.

          Need more places like that – that attract and openly advertise OC, methinks.

      • Wasn’t meant as a blanket trade/speaking for everyone. And I suppose next time I should place the /sarc tag, my tone alone is pretty bad at exerting sarcasm most of the time. By no means was I remotely trying to complain, I know how easily the “law” is skirted. Bad joke, bad timing I think.

        • Fair enough.

          I’ve learned to place the /sarc tag no matter how obvious I think it is that I’m being sarcastic. Even if I’m known to the regulars as someone who’d never mean seriously what I just wrote, there’s always the newcomer.

    • Why should you care? Drive over the nearest border and buy however many 30 round magazines you want. They don’t have a chance in hell of even brining an indictment, much less prosecuting you. I lived in Cook county for several years. Guess how many of my “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” failed to make it to my new home?

  13. Hopefully in Texas we can get these fair weather gun rights supporters voted out next election.

  14. This is downright shameful.

    In states where open carry is the law, police officers MAY NOT stop gun owners merely for openly carrying. This is a forth amendment protection (see here:

    While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward
    situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision — not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment — by detaining every “gunman” who lawfully possesses a firearm.

    And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrup’s favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed.

    There is case law in the 4th circuit, and probably the fifth too. But if not in the fifth, there will be.

    The “protection” in this bill is probably redundant, because it probably already IS the law that police officers may not stop merely for open carrying (see above) (4th amendment case law)

    This is shameful because it is disingenuous on both sides, since such protection is probably superfluous. Anyone who voted this down is uninformed, or worse.

    Call your legislator in TX and make them aware of these cases and inform them.

  15. The bill may be in a bit of trouble, but it is not yet dead. And Abbott will simply have to put it into the special session if it fails in the regular one, unless he wants to risk quite a few very disappointed Republican voters. Campus carry may be at greater risk at this point.

  16. If open carry does not become law by the end of the 84th Texas Legislature, the failure will be the result of a strange alliance between legislators on the radical left and extreme right . The amendment that would bar law enforcement from verifying if open carriers are licensed was first introduced by pro Obama black liberal gun control advocates as a strategy to kill open carry legislation, then racist hate groups like the New Black Panther Party became open carry advocates once they recognized just how beneficial the amendment would be to their kill whitey crusade in angry black strongholds like Houston and Dallas. After Legislative committees stripped the amendment, it was reintroduced by Huffines as a backdoor attempt at constitutional carry. Although I believe that open carry is foolish in most situations, it will be a damn shame if the measure fails as a result of self serving agendas by race baiting radical liberals such as Senator Rodney Ellis and Senator Royce West who threw their support behind the gullible effort of a crazy multi millionaire right wing extremist like Senator Don Huffines.

  17. Will someone please inform the Texas Legislature that the courts can institute unlicensed open carry … thus the Legislature should pass licensed open carry while they can?!?!?!?

    And why could the courts do that you might be thinking? Because the only option to be armed in Texas right now is licensed concealed carry which costs serious money … and plenty of court precedents have established concretely that government cannot impose a charge (tax) to exercise a Constitutionally enumerated right. Since Texas currently charges money for concealed carry, the only option available to the courts would be to institute unlicensed (e.g. no charge/tax) open carry.

    • I agree with you in spirit but I think that the legality of long gun open carry throws a monkey wrench into it. By far stretch, there is the exercise of the right to bear arms through unlicensed long gun open carry. I don’t agree but there it is. However, the catch for our side could be decision language that has declared a handgun to be the most practical and ideal type of firearm for individual self defense. Running that angle, it has to be clear to anyone that Texas denies the exercise of the right to bear the most practical type of firearm for self defense.

      The Ohio legislature is holding hearings on a house bill that would make unlicensed concealed carry legal in Ohio. We would retain the licensing system for purposes of reciprocity but those in the state would not have to worry about it. As we’ve only had a license system here since 2005, I’m hoping that we do the right thing this year and make Ohio a true constitutional carry state.

      • John,

        I actually thought about the angle where Texas would argue (in a lawsuit) that Texans can openly carry long guns without any licensing (taxing). There are two compelling arguments against that position. First of all the Heller decision smacked down Washington D.C. because they completely banned an entire class of firearms — handguns. (And you actually touched on that somewhat as well.) Second, we can use analogies and precedents on free speech lawsuits. Example: suppose that Texas passes a law forbidding the use of Internet because terrorists use it to recruit sympathizers — and claim that is okay because Texans can use other venues (flyers, newspapers, magazines, television, billboards, rallies, etc.) to exercise their free speech rights. Such a law would be struck down so fast it would make everyone’s head spin. The same principle applies to firearms. A ban on one popular type of firearm is not permissible even if other firearms are available.

        • I agree. Mine was an attempt to look at it from the statist POV and figure their reasoning.

          I’m still dumbfounded that Texas has licensed concealed carry of handguns and no license free open carry of such. That seems wrong on its face and I can’t, deep down, understand how the State reconciles that with a straight face.

  18. I’m growing extremely weary of this bullshit “‘officer safety’ trumps your civil rights” attitude coming from police organizations and leadership. I know there are individual cops who support my rights, but virtually every org that claims to represent police in any capacity, as well as most police chiefs (not rural sheriffs, thankfully) are more than happy to flush the Bill of Rights if it makes their jobs ever so slightly easier.

  19. I went to high school in Texas. It is a police state. No body questions or disciplines the Thugs in Blue.

  20. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and politicians.”

    It’s not exactly what Jefferson said, but it’s close enough for government work.

  21. The amendment to prohibit police stops checking for CHL is redundant to 4th Amendment of the land.
    Police have to abide by the 4th anyway. So what’s the big deal with the cops and that redundant amendment which is nearly saying same thing as the 4th?
    Cheifs want their force safe but they neglect our right to protect ourselves.
    Their job is to enforce law. Not write law.

    • “Their [police officers’] job is to enforce law.”

      Actually, their job is to enforce the will of the ruling class … whether or not their will is righteous, moral, just, and Constitutional.

  22. I hope so bad I’m wrong, but I think they’ll play volleyball with this bill until time runs out, then we can only blame ourselves for electing these crustaceans! (no spine)

  23. Governor Abbott can call a special session of the legislature to get this passed. During that session, open carry should be the only legislation considered. Let’s ram it down the hoplophobe’s throats to get it passed.

  24. I only read the bold print headline of this post.
    I immediately again sent msg’s and left phone messages to our TX legislative and committee tonight.
    To all Texans. Quit bellyaching and just do it! Stand up and Fight.
    Thank you for those proactive in this matter.

  25. One of the good things about Texas is that the a-holes who call themselves politicians can only screw up the state every 2 years.

  26. The worst part is that they kept citing police officers’ associations as the entities calling out against it.

    Newsflash, morons: you work for US, not POAs!!

    Just goes to show you who is actually represented – the big donors.

  27. If someone were to want to help a brother state out, here’s the list of Rino’s who changed their vote:

    Whole list of Rino’s:
    Rep. Anderson, Charles (512) 463-0135
    Rep. Ashby, Trent (512) 463-0508
    Rep. Aycock, Jimmie Don (512) 463-0684
    Rep. Bonnen, Dennis (512) 463-0564
    Rep. Bonnen, Greg (512) 463-0729
    Rep. Burkett, Cindy (512) 463-0464
    Rep. Cook, Byron (512) 463-0730
    Rep. Dale, Tony (512) 463-0696
    Rep. Davis, Sarah (512) 463-0389
    Rep. Farney, Marsha (512) 463-0309
    Rep. Fletcher, Allen (512) 463-0661
    Rep. Frank, James (512) 463-0534
    Rep. Galindo, Rick (512) 463-0269
    Rep. Geren, Charlie (512) 463-0610
    Rep. Goldman, Craig (512) 463-0608
    Rep. Gonzales, Larry (512) 463-0670
    Rep. Harless, Patricia (512) 463-0496
    Rep. King, Susan Lewis (512) 463-0718
    Rep. King, Phil (512) 463-0738
    Rep. Koop, Linda (512) 463-0454
    Rep. Larson, Lyle (512) 463-0646
    Rep. Meyer, Morgan (512) 463-0367
    Rep. Miller, Doug (512) 463-0325
    Rep. Miller, Rick (512) 463-0710
    Rep. Morrison, Geanie W.(512) 463-0456
    Rep. Murphy, Jim (512) 463-0514
    Rep. Price, Four (512) 463-0470
    Rep. Riddle, Debbie (512) 463-0572
    Rep. Sheets, Kenneth (512) 463-0244
    Rep. Sheffield, J. D. (512) 463-0628
    Rep. Smith, Wayne (512) 463-0733
    Rep. Smithee, John T. (512) 463-0702
    Rep. Stephenson, Phil (512) 463-0604
    Rep. Thompson, Senfronia (512) 463-0720
    Rep. VanDeaver, Gary (512) 463-0692
    Rep. Villalba, Jason (512) 463-0576
    Rep. Zerwas, John (512) 463-0657

  28. I guess the specter of pistol open carrying minorities was too scary for some Texas Republicans. My Rep. voted “yes” but I will gladly donate money and encourage others to show their defective Representatives the door.

  29. law enforcement groups who claimed the proviso would put lives in jeopardy.

    Take note Texans… These law enforcement groups believe that you cannot be trusted bearing arms unless they can stop you and demand papers. Apparently, they do not believe that you have a right to bear arms free of government infringement.

  30. This issue really has me conflicted. I believe open carry is a right but I also believe it is stupid as hell, tactically speaking. And I agree a copy should be able to ask an open carrier for their chl card. You show it, interaction over. In Texas we don’t have printing laws and we don’t have accidental exposure rules so it’s not like you have to seriously dress around your carry. If it’s covered and printing and it accidentally shows every time you bend over no big deal.

    • That’s the thing – a cop CAN ask you for your CHL. And you could choose to show it, if you felt like engaging with the officer in a “consensual stop.”

      That is perfectly fine. What this amendment would have prevented would be an officer detaining you, demanding that you produce a license. That would require an “investigative stop”, or a “Terry stop”, and using a Terry stop solely to check for a license has been ruled unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment by various courts.

    • I just have to ask Frankly my dears why do we give a damn? Plenty of folks open carrying long guns got stopped by cops, same will happen if open carry ever becomes legal because some uninformed busybody called 911 and apparently 911 operators are equally uniformed otherwise they would simply inform caller it is legal in Texas, so long as Joe Bob is not menacing anyone. So what if you have to show your CHL? It is required if you have a handgun on you have your CHL with you anyway. I don’t know about you, but I’m not interested in having a discussion with any LEO about The Constitution.. Showing my CHL would be much shorter time than any other type of stop. Discretion is the better part of valor. I do hope Open Carry does become legal in Texas, just due to it should be the responsible gun owners choice how they carry, not law enforcement, not politicians. . . . . .

    • My problem is “accidentally shows” can be and is interpreted however the cop likes. Cop has a bad day, he can wreak havoc in your life and finances. Even if you win in court, you’re still out of thousands of dollars and depending on your current job, an arrest (only arrest) could mean looking for a new one those too…school teachers, daycare workers..etc. I don’t want my freedoms to rely on a DA (armed with “everything is a felony”) using prosecutory discretion or judge using sentencing discretion nor the states enforcers using interpretive discretion.

  31. There is a much different take in the San Antonio Express News this morning. Here is an excerpt from the article:

    Rep. Poncho Nevarez, the only Democrat of the House’s conferees, said he thinks there’s little he and other open carry opponents can do because the bill itself enjoys such universal support among Republicans. If the 10-member conference committee fails to come to an agreement, he said, the House will accept the Huffines amendment rather than kill the bill all together.

    “I wish it was a death knell, but I know differently,” said Nevarez, D-Eagle Pass. “I think we’re past the ideal outcome.”

    The Express News is a far left leaning publication and I have no doubt that they would rather exult in this bill’s failure to pass, but the tone of this article is that its passage is a fait accompli.

    So maybe we don’t wad up our panties yet?

  32. Perhaps it is time to force a vote on this with daily open carry rallies in Austin until passage?

    • I think it was also 1 or 2 legislative sessions ago that lawmakers wrote and passed a bill for themselves which allowed them to carry concealed firearms in places where regular CHL’s couldn’t. I wish I remembered the bill number and session. Basically they promoted rights for themselves which are not granted to the regular citizens of Texas.

  33. So the police want the right to violate my 4th Amendment rights and the Texas legislator is going to give it to them. Nice. Is anyone else starting to worry about the increasingly trigger happy cops, or is that just me?

  34. Wow, talk about fast. Just sent an e-mail to my rep Ashby, told him he had likely lost my vote. immediately got a reply asking for my phone #, gave them one, immediately got a call. Ashby’s spox says he rushed in from the hall to vote, thought he was voting on whether to do a conference committee and voted “no”, when he found it it was a vote to accept or reject the senate language he asked the clerk to change his vote. reminded me he was a co-author of the original house OC bill. We’ll see what happens I guess.

    • To paraphrase:
      Upon learning that the Senate version failed 79 to 63, he asked to change his vote and make it 78 to 64, so that nobody could accuse him of voting anti gun and pro JBT.

      Or we can accept his version at face value:
      He was too busy to know what he was voting on before he voted against it.

      Neither one seems like much of a hiring recommendation if you were looking to hire a guy to represent you in the state House, does it?

      • Yep, my thinking…most controversial legislation of the session…A legislator might should stay in the chamber.

      • Yup, like I said waaaay above, could be other politicos telling their outraged constituents a similar tale. But Ashby did co-author (not just sponsor or support) the House OC bill, so maybe his story is righteous. Like I said, we’ll see. You’re right, it doesn’t sound good in any case. But they hopped on it fast when I complained.

  35. We already have officers, LOT’S of them, that already demand to see the serial number of firearms and carry permits of any open carrier they see.

    If I may paraphrase US v. Black: The default status of a lawfully carried firearm is not that it is stolen.

    Therefore, a police officer needs specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion that a carried firearm is stolen. Otherwise, seizing it to “run the serial number” is an unconstitutional seizure, and an unconstitutional search.

    Making that point explicit in the statutes helps everyone. Leaving it out of the statutes means that law-abiding citizens harmed by having their constitutionally protected rights violated have only one recourse: the courts, and making the state comply at the expense of tax-payers.

  36. Officer walks up and says,”let me see your handgun license.”
    I switch to my Sgt Shultz voice:
    Me: “Mein papers? Jawol mein Herr! *clicks heels*.

  37. None of this would apply if you are black of course. Black people don’t have the same 2nd amendment rights that whites do. I mean, they can try but then they generally get gunned down by the cops.

Comments are closed.