Previous Post
Next Post


The controversial Dutton/Huffines amendment that was virulently opposed by police unions has now been stripped from House Bill 910, the Texas Open Carry bill. Whether that amendment “means anything” is a matter of debate, since some (such as the Senate bill’s author, Estes) say that the amendment wasn’t necessary in the first place; the US Constitution already provides the protections the amendment sought to safeguard. Regardless, the committee has stripped the amendment. Where does that leave the status of Open Carry in Texas? Well . . .

apparently the committee didn’t really have the authority to strip the amendment.

Typically, Texas legislative conference committees are strictly restricted to reconciling the differing language between two versions of a bill, and cannot otherwise add or delete from the bill as passed. Stripping away the amendment appears to be outside the bounds of their authority, and so now it’s entirely possible that both the House and the Senate will have to vote to authorize them to do that.

If the bill succeed in both those votes, then the House and Senate will have to vote on HB 910. Again. If it passes both chambers, it then heads to the Governor’s desk. Meanwhile, speaking of monkey wrenches . . .

State Sen. José Rodríguez [above] told the Texas Tribune today that he plans to filibuster the open carry bill.

Rodríguez was among a coalition of Democrats who amended the bill in the Senate to add the protection against police detainment of open carriers. He now claims he did so because he hoped the provision would become a reason for Gov. Greg Abbott to veto the legislation. “This was a strategy,” he said, using the “I was for it because I was against it” defense.

Go figure. No idea at this time when the four votes mentioned above may be taken. Stay tuned.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. 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*.

    • This has been a big issue in Texas this legislative session and last electoral cycle, with abundant media attention and dinner table conversation. I don’t see how a cop on the beat could claim ignorance of open carry’s legality once this goes into effect.

      That said, some moron cop is sure to harrass someone lawfully openly carrying a handgun, and there will be an incident. Hopefully it will just be harrassment, resulting in a formal complaint against the offending officer and perhaps a nice little settlement for civil rights violations. Or it could go differently.

      Funny, for all the liberals’ handwringing over blood in the streets, were that to happen, the more likely catalyst than a law abiding OCer, would be an ignorant, overzealous cop who shelters statist ambitions.

      • I’m not a lawyer BUT I’m pretty sure that open carrying would not be grounds for a stop. I’m also pretty sure that violations of civil rights are the one thing we can still she and hold a cop personally liable for. I say pass the bill and then use video activism to stop police from harassing open carriers. Sue and get injunctions in city after city.

    • You wear the CHL in a window pocket in-line on your beltstrap next to the holster, with the reverse side facing out, so your address and picture are not visible. The CHL indicates it’s a CHL on the reverse side. Poof, no probable cause. IANAL

  2. Wanted to say something about my elected officials but it would all get censored. Maybe after a sammich and beer.

  3. For those of you tempted and frustrated enough to scream “This is why I hate politics and never get involved!!!”, just remember that one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. *Ahem*……State Senator……*cough*….José Rodríguez……*ahem*……

    Excuse me, had a scratchy throat for a second there. As I was saying……

    • You end up being governed by your inferiors either way, because the best of society rarely seek a career in politics. It’s virtually always the bloodsuckers and bottom feeders who lack sufficient skills to actually be useful to society that enter politics. It wasn’t always so, but the system has sufficiently calcified and developed a sophisticated immune system that is almost 100% successful at preventing moral, intelligent, capable people from attaining office (or if they manage to slip through the cracks, they are either corrupted or expelled quite quickly).

      • “(or if they manage to slip through the cracks, they are either corrupted or expelled quite quickly)”

        … or marginalized or neutered.

  4. Must be the administrators. All the cops I know in TX, support open and concealed carry. Seems like once they make Chief, they become politicians…

    • The police chief is the mayor’s enforcement arm.
      His political views are issued to him, along with his uniform and Generalisimo’s stars.

      The rest of the department are civil servants.

      • “Civil servants”

        They work for politicians and follow their orders, and yet somehow they’re just servants who aren’t responsible for their willing obedience. Fuhrerprinzip is alive and well in the year 2015.

  5. There are some things, like sausage and legislation, that are easier to swallow if you aren’t around to watch while they’re being made.

  6. Just tell me when and where the riot will be. I can be there in 20 hours. Are AKs more appropriate for civil unrest or should I bring the AR for magazine compatibility? I really wanna be a team player on this one.

    • It would have to be a pistol to be a proper riot. You can’t use a rifle cause that would actually be legal to carry. Because that is how Texas lawmakers logic apparently.

  7. “Whether that amendment “means anything” is a matter of debate, since some (such as the Senate bill’s author, Estes) say that the amendment wasn’t necessary in the first place”

    Yeah, and also like the actual courts. See here:

    “More importantly, where a state permits individuals to openly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more, cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such a justification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals in those states.”

    This is from the fourth circuit, but there is strong case law in other circuits.

    – and by the way, this very “pro gun” ruling from the 4th circuit is the same anti-gun circuit that said officials can exercise discretion and deny permits (Woollard)

  8. Yet another reason all unions should be abolished, especially the overpaid public sector leeches like the thugs with a badge

    • Government employee unions should be outlawed specifically. Taxpayer funded workers using their government power to extort more money from the people using that very same money? Its just so insanely perverse and disgusting. Frankly anything related to their pay and benefits should be voted on by the electorate.

      • “Government employee unions should be outlawed specifically. Taxpayer funded workers using their government power to extort more money from the people using that very same money? Its just so insanely perverse and disgusting. Frankly anything related to their pay and benefits should be voted on by the electorate.”

        Let’s examine this, shall we?
        “Frankly anything related to their pay and benefits should be voted on by the electorate.”

        The electorate… Who are ” Taxpayer funded workers using their government power to extort more money from the people using that very same money”

        Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

        On another note:
        I too take SERIOUS issue with police unions, but they do serve some good. There are plenty of good cops who would be canned for doing their jobs if not for the unions standing behind them. Unions = good. Unions who twist arms for higher pay, can’t remain neutral and compulsively push a political agenda, and protect crooked cops so guilty you can smell the rot on them from a mile away, bad.

        If they could remain apolitical and cut out the greed and corruption, you’d have the percfect system to protect employees in a job where “He done killed my baby in cold blood! He’s a racist! My child was a perfect angel!” would otherwise blackball you for life. Too bad it went from “We want fair treatment and safe workplaces!” to “Give us more money or else we’ll walk out and cost you millions!” and “Vote how we tell you or we’ll break your knees in a back alley!”

  9. And yet most anti’s and anyone not up to date on gun laws usually uses Texas as their joke/foil/example/what have you. Texas is actually pretty backwards on most gun rights. Many/most states states have had open carry as legal with and/or whiteout a “permit” for years and there has been no blood in the streets phenomenon.

  10. I hope it passes just so other Democrats can ridicule Rodriguez for adding the amendment. Well, not JUST for that reason. Someone has to get a pic of his face if and when it passes. That would be PRICELESS!

  11. So, the jackwagon liberal democrat thought that his pro-4A “poison pill” would kill the bill, and the republicans called his bluff?

    Progressives: anti-freedom since… forever.

  12. If there is no reason to include it because the protections are implied, what’s the harm in making them explicit?

    Perfect is the enemy of the good, but if the police are clamoring to remove it as an enforcement measure, that tells me it’s necessary. Without the amendment, I don’t know if I can support the bill. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I may just be ok with the filibuster.

    • Legally speaking, it shouldn’t be necessary. As a practical matter, it would be good to have it, since the police are only clamoring to remove it because they’ve been ignoring the Fourth Amendment for years.


    Rule 12.03 on Page 91. The language is question is the Dutton/Rinaldi amendment in HB910 and the Huffines amendment in CSHB910. As you may recall from Dean Weingarten’s posting not too long ago, there is a slight variation in the wording of the two amendments. Disregard, for a moment, that the reason that the House and Senate are in dispute is because the House no longer desires this language in the bill. The fact is that the language between the two bills is different, regardless of intent or interpretation. The conferees are allowed to omit language as long as it is directly tied to the disagreement. The way I read it, the only way they may be able to reach compromise would be for both sides to agree to omit the language in disagreement.

  14. So the only reason he supported the Constitution was to treasonously work against it.

    Yup, sounds like a typical leftist.

    Also, pay attention, those who always come to the defense of the police in debates around here. This is why so few of us trust them.

  15. Ah, yes. The old “I was for it, because I was against it” trick. That’s the second time they fell for it this week.

  16. It is a mess for sure and with more power grabbing, subterfuge, and betrayal than a prime time TV drama. But that fact that it is even possible to get pro-gun legislation heard and passed in TX is a wonder to all of us stuck in the People’s Republik of Kalifornia. Oh to live free one day.

  17. For a moment I was confused as to why the Democrat did that… I thought maybe he was one of the fabled ones who are ghosts of the ‘blue dog’ movement back in the day.

    But nope… disingenuous piece of crap like most politicians.

  18. Ok police groups and unions have used their political clout to do this. Many of them get support and donations from the public. Please NRA ask your members NOT to support any pokice or law enforcement fundraising in Texas until they change their position on gun rights. Let’s start boycotting any business that has one of their stickers. Let’s hit these public safety groups in the pocket book.

    • No Dem was/is going to vote for final approval of open carry or campus carry. In the amendment stage there are basically two types of Dems that voted for the Huffines/Dutton language. First is those that did it to solely hoping it would create a problem and buy them time, rally opposition and delay to a point where they might be able to run out clock. The second type is the Duttons, Wests and Ellis’ who used the opportunity to reduce LEO ability to stop and question minorities. They are hedging bets. If it passes they get something, but they’ll vote against final adoption.

    • I never give a penny to cop organizations seeking donations. Most are rackets, anyway. Cop politics is run by unions and, as a result, will never get my support. There are cops I like and cops who are genuine professionals who do a good job. But they work in a politicized cesspool of corruption that is dominated and controlled by unions.

      Texas politics continues to be influenced by decades of Democrat control. Old habits die hard in Austin and the old ways are so institutionalized that doing things like open-carry results in the kind of tawdry foot-slog that our Republican dominated legislature is currently going through. For supposedly “conservative” politicians it’s more than a little embarrassing. Welcome to realpolitik, Texas style.

    • NRA is in bed with the criminal police state because feeding their own members into the legal system so they can be harassed, arrested, set up and killed by police criminals makes big money for the NRA, courts and lawyers.

      After Chicago black man Otis McDonald was recruited for the Supreme Court, NRA made $1.3 MILLION in legal fees. Rep. Brandon Phelps from Harrisburg in far southern IL sponsored the “good” HB183 carry bill written by his pet rat NRA contract lobbyist for IL Todd Vandermyde. Loaded with goodies like Duty to Inform police with criminal penalties, an UNLIMITED state and federal privacy waiver, and criminal penalties for hundreds of gun-free zones. The retarded Hick from Harrisburg Phelps argued on the House floor AGAINST taking DTI out of the bill, and black caucus Reps. from Chicago like Will Davis argued against DTI because they knew it would lead to profiling stops!

    • Pretty damn humbling, isn’t it? Best explanation I have heard is that it’s an urban/rural thing, and Texas has become home to a couple of the largest urban concentrations in the country. Given that, it’s pretty amazing that Texas is still as conservative as it is.

      • Texas isn’t anywhere near as conservative as it was, but it is still very independent minded, on both sides of the aisle. The people who move here often end up picking up on that independence themselves, so the atmosphere remains fairly so, but still gets nudged ever so slightly to the left. This process makes the Texas appear more conservative that it really is at times.

        • “Texas isn’t anywhere near as conservative as it was . . .”

          Uhm, well no. For decades Texas was run by Democrats. Many saw themselves as “conservatives” but all were ardent statist progressives who consistently supported the elaboration and reach of big government. Although long gone, our state still continues to suffer from their pervasive influence.

        • Texas isn’t conservative, it’s consistently statist. There are clusters of leftists in the large cities and the rest of the state is dominated by hardcore law-and-order fetishists and cop-worshipers.

          The only reason some conservatives feel obliged to defend Texas is because it is a liberal punching bag on some conservative matters of faith, such as the death penalty.

  19. Being born and raised in Texas, It seems that the left coast has been moved into the area for the past 15-20 years and brought their politics with them. I can only speak of the DFW area though.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here