In this document from the Texas legislature (pdf), the line by line differences in the House and Senate versions of HB 910, the pending open carry bill, are shown. All of the differences are in the Dutton and Huffines amendments. The Huffines amendment was said to be identical to the Dutton amendment, but that turned out to be untrue. Here is the text of the two amendments . . .
The Dutton amendment:
SECTION 29. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government
Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as
follows:
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.
The Huffines amendment:
SECTION __. Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government
Code, is amended by adding Section 411.2049 to read as
follows:
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. [FA9]
I have highlighted the changed wording in the Huffines amendment. As you can see, there is no substantive difference.
One wonders if an early version of the Dutton amendment was cut and pasted instead of the one that eventually passed the House with a 101 to 42 majority. The legislation passed the Senate, 20 to 11. Governor Abbott has said that he will sign what open carry legislation comes to his desk.
Whatever the case, the minor wording differences mean that a house concurrence vote will be necessary. There should not be any amendments or scheduling games, from what I understand. A concurrence vote should come this week.
©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
Assuming no more monkey business, I guess we will see if Abbott was bluffing or not in about a week.
As long as Dan Patrick is Lieutenant Governor, Abbott will not have to prove himself. Patrick will have his way, which is to ping-pong this bill to death and to blame the House for it not being passed.
The word is that the House is going to accept the Senate language as is.
Regardless of whether the language was close or exactly the same it would have to go to conference committee and the amendment approved by the House. This is becasue the Senate did not pass HB910 as passed by the House. They passed the Committee Substitute to HB910 as substutited by the Senate State Affairs Committee and amended by Sen Huffines. This is why Sen Estes, said he preferred to send the bill clean to the floor, instead of stripping the Dutton amendment in committee. Had they sent HB910 to the floor as passed by House, Huffman and Whitmire would have had to strip the Dutton amendment by vote. Presuming the same outcome, the bill would be on the Gov’s desk now. Instead, Huffman insisted on the committee substitute…so now it must face one more vote on the amendment by the Senate, regardless of whether it was identical or viturally so, because of how it came to be, rather than the wording. The intent was the same.
Freaking *whether*. I can’t help but feel it’s intentional. But we’ll see.
It’s not raining at this parade, yet…
This should have been done a long time ago.
No, it should never have been banned in the first place.
Still thinking that this whole thing will come a cropper. But I am becoming cautiously optimistic
So left this week, before session ends..
1. Floor vote on Senate amendment to CSHB910. It passed the House before, all Phillips has to do is fend off stalling actions and technicalities…easier said than done…but I’m pretty confident he’ll do it.
2. Floor vote Tuesday on SB11. As long as Fletcher can get a clean version as passed by Senate, it should pass. The anti’s have just about conceded on OC, so this will be where they make their stand, and are already ramping up the media effort.
3. Conference HB554 and get it to floors.
Those are actually very different. Huffines’ wording allows peace officers to stop anyone open carrying a handgun outside of the approved methods.
“Those are actually very different. ”
Please clarify the difference…
Don’t wear an ankle holster, while wearing shorts, Crocs and black dress socks and you won’t be stopped…
…fashion police however is a different story….
It would seem that rockin’ a shirtless belly band is also a no-no…
The full bill requires handguns that are carried in the open to be in a shoulder- or belt-mounted holster. One amendment allows peace officers to stop anyone carrying a handgun in public outside of those approved methods. The other amendment forbids peace officers from stopping an open carrier, even if the gun is in hand.
Good luck, TX.
Go Texas! I’m from the embarrassing state of Illinois and when we see more and more states embracing their God given 2nd Amendment Right it gives us hope!
Is the picture used perchance from Shooter’s Grill in Rifle CO?
this is from a local coffee shop in Spokane, WA that approved her employees who have CCW permits to carry at work in response to multiple robberies. caused quite a stir in this quiet little meth-infused suburb of Seattle.
More to the topic, this one is a nailbiter, right down to the wire. Could go either way.
If it fails the recriminations in the open carry community will make anything we’ve seen to date look like nothing; there’s already grumblings that the “extreme” demonstrations cost Texas un-permit-ed open carry.
Unpermitted open carry, essentially constitutional carry, was never on the table in the first place. Not seriously.
People complaining about demonstrations having “cost” us that are just trying to spin their way out of conceding that it’s only because of the demonstrations that we’ve even come this far.
They’re trying to rain on OCers’ parade because it’s the OCers who’ve raised this issue’s profile and built a consensus, while the sit-back-and-wait-for-our-rights crowd achieved nothing.
Really, has any state gone from licenced concealed carry to constitutional carry in one go? Somebody may happen to name one, but it’s the exception, not the norm. Even Oklahoma, the reddest of the red states, just went to licensed open carry. They went a step further and allowed it for out of state licensees, too (including Texans!), but it’s still not constitutional carry. Not yet.
Only in Texas would people call unlicensed open carry the same as constitutional carry.
Look, guys – the Texas jealousy keeps spreading!
LOL, I live in Montana, I have nothing to be jealous of when it comes to Texas, your state is so backwards in gun rights compared to us it may as well be California.
Yeah, I’ve lived in southern Montana for six years. You can keep it. Texans are changing the policies of our state. Unfortunately for Montana, gun-related freedoms don’t do any good if the citizens are too lazy to exercise them. Have fun on your downward slide past mediocrity, courtesy of agricultural and energy legislation!
Well, you do have a point there. There is a lot wrong with our state economically and I’ve only seen half a dozen other people OCing since I started doing it a couple years ago. One of our big problems is 6% of our population are cali immigrants and the number is rising because of the drought. We really need to put up border checkpoints.
But if your not into money its a great place to live. Personally I’m kind looking forward to the total economic collapse we seem head for. I’m off the grid and well armed, thats all the job I need 🙂
My original point though was that in constitutional carry means unlicensed conceal carry in most places, (like 99% of Montana) licensed open carry is a long way from that, its a step in the right direction but its still below average when it comes to gun rights in the US, and in per capita gun ownership your not even in the top 25.
We’re getting there. Slowly but surely.
The picture looks gimmicky, like she’s carrying as a fashion accessory: what’s she going to do when her hands are occupied and she’s pushed down/grabbed and/or her pistol is grabbed.
Open carry makes no sense in a situation where your hands are occupied and people are constantly in very close proximity to you.
She does have a nice, big ass, though.
“Open carry makes no sense in a situation where your hands are occupied and people are constantly in very close proximity to you.”
It makes a lot more sense if you use a retention holster.
Having said that, there is an amusing alternative configuration:
Openly carry what is essentially a “decoy” (unloaded and/or non-functional) handgun on your left hip and carry a concealed pocket gun on your right side. If someone manages to grab your handgun on the left side, imagine their surprise and dismay when they realize that the decoy doesn’t work and you have a pocket gun in you right hand!
Personally, I am a little bit concerned over the wording about belt or shoulder holsters. There may be other ways to openly carry a handgun.
Having said all that, I suppose these bills as worded are a GINORMOUS step in the right direction. This definitely falls under the saying “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”.
Typical Texas pissing contest. Either one could have withdrawn their amendment, but nooooo , just had to grandstand