The Dems tried to amend hb910 to include a provision requiring OCers to supply license on demand. It failed. Phillips really beat around the bush and refused to state that without the amendment, OCers would NOT have to provide ID on demand, which is what the Dems were trying to get him to openly state.
In fact, there is no legal requirement to display license on demand. I for one will certainly refuse to do so, but I seriously doubt that in my area there would be a problem with it.
There is still a statute (Government Code 411.205) that talks about supplying ID and license on demand, but I think that it has been sufficiently neutered.
(
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.205)
From the bill which removed the penalty for violations of 411.205 (in the same bill, they removed violation of 411.205 as a reason for suspension of license as well):
SECTION 12A.03. An offense under Section 411.205, Government Code, may not be prosecuted after the effective date of this article. If, on the effective date of this article, a criminal action is pending for an offense under Section 411.205, the action is dismissed on that date. However, a final conviction for an offense under Section 411.205 that exists on the effective date of this article is unaffected by this article.
(
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB02730F.HTM)
first of all stealth, you state, there is no legal requirement, then you turnaround and list 411-205 as a statute requiring citizens shall display, then you state: oh but it is neutered???
how can a viable statute still on the books be neutered.??? 411. 205 specifically states:
Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder
shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.
further,
411.207 allow the nice officer to disarm you "...believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.". oh yes, the nice officer must give back your firearm when they dismiss you from their presence, if they believe you do not pose a threat...lol
411.208 states the nice officer cannot be held liable for their actions...
nurtured, ya right...lol...recommend you read 411.186 and 411.187 where all the nice officer has to do is fills out an affidavit, sends it in to wherever and the wherever sends a notice to the licensee their permit is revoked or suspended...why get upset with a licensee and write a ticket in the field when all the nice officer has to do is sit in their office and get even with the cranky licensee who flatly states quote:...i for one will certainly refuse to do so...unquote.
oh boy, oh boy, you can OC w/o the nice police bothering me...apparently not stealth...cuz according to texas statutes listed above, the nice peace officer is not restrained from hassling citizens OC'g now are they??
how are the nice officer's going to ascertain the bloke open carrying that firearm is truly allowed to by permit unless they ask the citizen for the permit. sounds like they have probable cause cuz texas' citizen's right to open carry is tied to a piece of privilege granted by the state.
no need for additional statutes...its already on the books in the lone star state...
puff the magic dragon lives on in the hearts and minds...
ipse