Stickland files Constitutional Carry - HB 375 of the 85(R)

[stealthyeliminator]

You may read here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB375

I have not yet read it thoroughly, so I don't yet have much to say about it. If someone would like to get the conversation going, please feel free!

 

[TXOC16]

You may read here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=85R&Bill=HB375

I have not yet read it thoroughly, so I don't yet have much to say about it. If someone would like to get the conversation going, please feel free!

Good on him. I haven't yet read the bill, either, but it's important to note that Jonathan Stickland fought valiantly for Constitutional Carry, and then for unmolested Open Carry after it was apparent that Constitutional Carry was never going to make it through the House or Senate in Texas during the immediate-previous 2015 legislative session. He was also nearly universally reviled and ridiculed among the entrenched, establishment, go-along get-along scum previously and currently occupying the State House in Texas (i.e. Joe Straus, his mini-me Dennis Bonnen, and their minions on both sides of the aisle). In fact, Texas Monthly actually labeled Stickland "The Worst Representative" of the 2015 session. I liked the guy a lot prior to Texas Monthly's "rating," but I liked him a whole lot more afterwards.

Stickland won reelection by a very comfortable margin (so, apparently, his constituents like him, too), and with this pre-filed bill he appears to be laying the groundwork for yet another "interesting" legislative session.

 

[color of law]

WOW, Texas is so far behind the curve and yet they hold themselves out as a defender of the Second Amendment.

A person commits an offense if the person carries a handgun on or about his or her person and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place, unless the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster.

In Ohio open carry is however you want to carry it as long as it is discernible or recognizable as a gun.

 

[TXOC16]

WOW, Texas is so far behind the curve...

Indeed.

 

[qednick]

I had a quick scan (didn't read in detail) and it seems "license holder" is replaced with "person" for the most part. Also liked this addition:

The mere possession or carrying of a
handgun, openly or concealed, with or without a license issued
under this subchapter, shall not constitute reasonable belief for a
peace officer to disarm or detain an otherwise law-abiding person.

I'll read in more detail later when I have more time.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Appears as if folks think that passage of such a law is a great idea. Its not.

 

[solus]

I had a quick scan (didn't read in detail) and it seems "license holder" is replaced with "person" for the most part. Also liked this addition:

The mere possession or carrying of a
handgun, openly or concealed, with or without a license issued
under this subchapter, shall not constitute reasonable belief for a
peace officer to disarm or detain an otherwise law-abiding person.

I'll read in more detail later when I have more time.

Hmmm

Distinctly remember intense forum commentary on this specific subject and the lonestar contributors, etc., stated, without hesitation & unequivocally, told everyone this clause is insignificant didn't need inclusion in the original legislation.

well your legislature has done their due diligence in righting a perceived wrong.... so no other legislative needs to be presented this year as they believe the world as they perceive it, is right.

Oh wait... oh my, that's right, you'll felt the legislature body would eliminate the permit mandate THIS year....

Hate when emotional bias intercede with the blunt force of reality of $$$$$$ gleaned into the coffers from sale of the permit...

Maybe the Easter bunny might given another sliver of restoring your carry rights.

Ipse

 

[qednick]

Appears as if folks think that passage of such a law is a great idea. Its not.

Thanks for your opinion and also thanks for explaining your reasoning in such great detail! Forgive me if I've taken everything you've said with a pinch of salt ever since you berated me for stating I would prefer a jury during a criminal trial--yet never bothered to change your jury nullification avatar.

Hmmm

Distinctly remember intense forum commentary on this specific subject and the lonestar contributors, etc., stated, without hesitation & unequivocally, told everyone this clause is insignificant didn't need inclusion in the original legislation.

...

Ipse

Not needed, but welcome for purposes of clarity.

 

[Va_Nemo]

Appears as if folks think that passage of such a law is a great idea. Its not.

Basis for your belief?

Nemo

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Hmmm

Distinctly remember intense forum commentary on this specific subject and the lonestar contributors, etc., stated, without hesitation & unequivocally, told everyone this clause is insignificant didn't need inclusion in the original legislation.

well your legislature has done their due diligence in righting a perceived wrong.... so no other legislative needs to be presented this year as they believe the world as they perceive it, is right.

Oh wait... oh my, that's right, you'll felt the legislature body would eliminate the permit mandate THIS year....

Hate when emotional bias intercede with the blunt force of reality of $$$$$$ gleaned into the coffers from sale of the permit...

Maybe the Easter bunny might given another sliver of restoring your carry rights.

Ipse

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

If you mean that we said we didn't need constitutional carry before, well, maybe some here said that, but I don't remember that.

Otherwise you might be confusing this clause here with an amendment to the original OC bill that had to do with instructing LEOs to not stop-and-ID based solely on OC. But I honestly can't tell what you're referring to.

 

[solus]

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

If you mean that we said we didn't need constitutional carry before, well, maybe some here said that, but I don't remember that.

Otherwise you might be confusing this clause here with an amendment to the original OC bill that had to do with instructing LEOs to not stop-and-ID based solely on OC. But I honestly can't tell what you're referring to.

oh how bout that...stealthy...you can tell what i'm referring to...

ipse

 

[stealthyeliminator]

oh how bout that...stealthy...you can tell what i'm referring to...

ipse

I had the same initial reaction that you did.

Although on further review, this clause in the constitutional carry bill is somewhat different - both in content, and in placement.

But, I certainly understand your reaction...

 

[HPmatt]

No mass murders in Texas since OCers were 'allowed' to OC, let's roll it back some more.

http://gunowners.org/oped12022016b.htm

 

[davidmcbeth]

No mass murders in Texas since OCers were 'allowed' to OC, let's roll it back some more.

http://gunowners.org/oped12022016b.htm

Why does this matter? A right is not contingent upon it bringing out positive things.

 

[Grapeshot]

No mass murders in Texas since OCers were 'allowed' to OC, let's roll it back some more.

http://gunowners.org/oped12022016b.htm

Why does this matter? A right is not contingent upon it bringing out positive things.

It matters a lot!

It has nothing to do with how you feel or how I feel. Look to the receptiveness of those empowered to change the statutes/laws.

A good, clean local history, coupled with the same from other states, does much to improve the possibility that the legislature will be more amenable to returning more control to the good people.

 

[solus]

No mass murders in Texas since OCers were 'allowed' to OC, let's roll it back some more.

http://gunowners.org/oped12022016b.htm

Why does this matter? A right is not contingent upon it bringing out positive things.

It matters a lot!

It has nothing to do with how you feel or how I feel. Look to the receptiveness of those empowered to change the statutes/laws.

A good, clean local history, coupled with the same from other states, does much to improve the possibility that the legislature will be more amenable to returning more control to the good people.

the opportunity is long past when the lonestar legislature decided to keep their concept of a profit center for the state's coffer.

ipse

 

[TXOC16]

the opportunity is long past when the lonestar legislature decided to keep their concept of a profit center for the state's coffer.

And yet identical bills (SB 16, HB 339) have already been pre-filed in both houses for the 2017 Texas legislative session, which would eliminate that very "profit center" to which you refer. Go figure.

 

[solus]

And yet identical bills (SB 16, HB 339) have already been pre-filed in both houses for the 2017 Texas legislative session, which would eliminate that very "profit center" to which you refer. Go figure.

uh huh...and every bill ever prefiled has progressed through the lonestar legislature, w/o change annotation, to be sent to the honourable governor, where it is signed, and become statutes.

Right, just like Santa exists, as does the Easter Bunny, and we shouldn't forget Icahbod Crane should we?

if fairy tales come true, please tell us the last time you heard of your legislature freely and without significant distress, giving up an opportuity to collect revenue?

ipse

 

[TXOC16]

uh huh...and every bill ever prefiled has progressed through the lonestar legislature, w/o change annotation, to be sent to the honourable governor, where it is signed, and become statutes.

And Texas will never have concealed carry, nor open carry, nor campus carry...so very tiresome is the ever-present and ill-informed naysaying.

With regard to SB 16/HB 339, both Lieutenant Governor Patrick (the President of the Texas Senate), who was responsible for shepherding campus carry through the Senate during the last session, and Governor Abbott are firmly behind the bills. In fact, Lt. Gov Patrick has gone so far as to make SB 16/HB 339 one of his legislative priorities during the 2017 session. Clearance through the even more conservative House is all but a given.

You and I can speak again about these bills after May 29 of next year.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It matters a lot!

It has nothing to do with how you feel or how I feel. Look to the receptiveness of those empowered to change the statutes/laws.

A good, clean local history, coupled with the same from other states, does much to improve the possibility that the legislature will be more amenable to returning more control to the good people.

While I think mcbeth's point was valid (that the consequence of our right being recognized has no bearing on the right itself), you are (unfortunately?) correct that it does matter as a matter of practicality. If we want the laws to change - and we do - then the actual day to day happenings following changes in law do matter.