I hate those amendments. Especially the first one but would rather it pass with amendments than not pass.

Quote:

---

Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:

• House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
• One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
• Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.

---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.

I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.

I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.

---

LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.

SPC Backpacker said:

---

Quote:

---

Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:

• House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
• One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
• Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.

---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.

I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.

I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.

---

LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.

---

This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.

We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.

There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.

It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.

Tim Weaver said:

---

BCStalk said:

---

We had a lady in ours that shot the ground a couple times. Her shooting was not terrible once she figured it out, but it seemed that she had little to no practice. Looking at her target she probably passed. I'm assuming she had her finger on the trigger at low ready but I couldn't see from where I was standing.

---

I've never actually heard of anyone failing the class. I'm sure they're out there, but I've never heard of it.

---

We've had a couple. One was a gross safety violation. The other... still bugs me. Simply a case of "we don't trust you enough to let you finish." Someone out there undoubtedly passed him but a few very suspect questions had me actually stopping the class and booting him.

TheEyeGuy said:

---

Tim Weaver said:

---

BCStalk said:

---

We had a lady in ours that shot the ground a couple times. Her shooting was not terrible once she figured it out, but it seemed that she had little to no practice. Looking at her target she probably passed. I'm assuming she had her finger on the trigger at low ready but I couldn't see from where I was standing.

---

I've never actually heard of anyone failing the class. I'm sure they're out there, but I've never heard of it.

---

We've had a couple. One was a gross safety violation. The other... still bugs me. Simply a case of "we don't trust you enough to let you finish." Someone out there undoubtedly passed him but a few very suspect questions had me actually stopping the class and booting him.

---

I don't blame you for doing what you thought was right but this is exactly why we need CC.

My rights shouldn't depend on the feelz of an instructor.

ChipFTAC01 said:

---

AggiePetro07 said:

---

That is Joanie. Me likey so far.

---

What did Huffman have to say?

---

She was asking some good questions that would lead the sponsor to elaborate on why CC isn't anything but a chance for freedom for law-abiding citizens and not a catalyst for more criminals to START carrying. Basically, don't criminals already carry? Only law-abiding citizens follow the law? Shouldn't we help empower the law-abiding citizens because of that?

J_Daddy05 said:

---

4 said:

---

There is also a suppressor bill making it's way through. It proposes to remove the tax stamp requirement and (I believe) the extended application process for purchasing suppressors.

Eye guy will undoubtedly know more about this one, but I'm rooting for it.

---

This would be amazing if true.

ETA: and would cost me a crapton of money.

---

My understanding is that a suppressor manufactured in Texas and is only used within the boundaries of the state will no longer require a stamp. I probably would not use mine on Federal land within the state either.

This bill has passed the House and has been sent to the Senate. House Bill No.957

I am not a lawyer, simply passing on what I have heard.

OK, so I get your point - but I think people need to be free to not do business with anyone they want.

If gun dealers were allowed to reject any sale they wanted, without worry of discrimination suits, I suspect there'd be fewer "baby mamas" buying guns for thugs, etc.

would this include homeade cans as well?

Fishin Texas Aggie 05 said:

---

would this include homeade cans as well?

---

From my understanding of a quick reading, it removes restriction of "manufacturing" as long as it has the "Made in Texas" clearly stamped. I didn't deep dive but it sounds pretty dang promising.

4 said:

---

SPC Backpacker said:

---

Quote:

---

Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:

• House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
• One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
• Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.

---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.

I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.

I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.

---

LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.

---

This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.

We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.

There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.

It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.

---

LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.

With regard to the LEO's stopping you because you are open carrying - here's what happens. And this is pretty universal anywhere and everywhere you go.

If you are an average looking person that is just doing whatever it is you are doing and happen to have a pistol in a holster on your hip, or you are dressed in work gear with a nice 1911 or other similarly expensive well kept pistol on your hip - odds are the LEO is going to do exactly what everybody here will do - watch you for a few moments, make a quick determination after doing some basic profiling and leave you be.

Now if you are in a heated argument or you are walking around with your pants around your knees and the hi-point is stuck in your boxer waist band and you have neck tats and gold teeth - they are going to spend a lot more time watching and profiling you and may even find an excuse to stop you to have a quick talk.

I've been in a convenience store where there were half a dozen burly bearded guys wearing camo and every one of us carrying openly and the LEO getting coffee didn't bat a single eye at the crowd or waste a second of his time asking anybody any questions about their firearms or why we were carrying. It ends up being all about what you expect it to be - where you are located, what you are acting like, what you look like and how you are carrying yourself more than anything else.

And odds are that most of the OC you will see will be in more rural areas anyway and not in urban environments. That has been my experience far and away, and more rural LEO's don't bother nearly as much as a police officer working in the 5th Ward in Houston or wherever in Dallas or anywhere inside the loop in San Antonio would simply because of .....well, the nature of the beast.

The Wonderer said:

---

4 said:

---

SPC Backpacker said:

---

Quote:

---

Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:

• House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
• One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
• Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.

---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.

I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.

I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.

---

LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.

---

This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.

We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.

There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.

It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.

---

LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.

---

Of course they can. They may not state the ACTUAL reason, but they will have one, and unless you are stupid, you aren't going to argue with them about it.

I guess you could try to, but that belligerence alone gives them legitimate reason to cuff you.

Real world, yes they can. And they do, but generally not with clean, responsible looking and acting people.

4 said:

---

The Wonderer said:

---

4 said:

---

SPC Backpacker said:

---

Quote:

---

Adding the info I found from another link that answered part of my question:

• House Bill 1927 next returns to the Texas House to consider changes that senators made during almost seven hours of debate, including GOP amendments designed to win support from a handful of reluctant Republicans who, as of last week, were unsure about whether to support the bill.
• One of those amendments would create stiffer penalties for illegal weapons carried by felons and those convicted of family violence offenses.
• Another change removed House language that banned law officers from questioning somebody based solely on their possession of a handgun.

---
Personally I am ok with the amendments to get it passed. The former is a no brainer, the latter I can see as a win for LEO.

I will still keep my LTC for travel and voting purposes.

I will be interested to see how 30.06/30.07 vs a "No Guns signage under HB 1927" is interpreted.

---

LEO being able to question someone solely based on their possession of a handgun is against the core value of the 2nd amendment and almost makes this whole thing pointless.

---

This amendment doesn't change anything, effectively. They can stop you right now for any reason. If the amendment doesn't go into the bill, they can stop you and claim it's for a different reason. For instance, they can just say they had reports of a suspicious person that matches your description. That's it. They don't need this amendment to stop you and question you.

We have laws prohibiting illegal search and seizure.

There are no laws against a police officer asking you questions, for ANY reason.

It is a nod to the LEO community so they can save face and we can get this bill passed.

---

LEO cannot stop you for just any or no reason.

---

Of course they can. They may not state the ACTUAL reason, but they will have one, and unless you are stupid, you aren't going to argue with them about it.

I guess you could try to, but that belligerence alone gives them legitimate reason to cuff you.

Real world, yes they can. And they do, but generally not with clean, responsible looking and acting people.

---

Bad cops can stop you for any reason, real or imagined.

txags92 said:

---

samurai_texan said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

Hopefully by September. I will finally be legal.

---

https://nationalfile.com/exclusive-tx-gun-rights-says-lt-gov-dan-patrick-added-poison-pill-to-constitutional-carry-bill/


"It looks like Patrick may have successfully placed a poison pill in an amendment to Constitutional Carry, in hopes it would cause the House to kill the bill by a point of order."

---

Guess he needs to be added to the list. Who is a good candidate to replace him that I can support?

---

A potato

maverick2076 said:

---

That article reads like clickbait bs, unless they can specifically point out the amendment in question.

---

Agreed. Why not point out which amendment? Unless it's all blustering because you want to seem like the hero "overcoming this anti-gun action from Patrick".

Look, Patrick is no friend to gun owners, but I only like to deal in facts.