TexasCHLforum.com

big454 wrote:Regarding identifying to a police officer. We would only need to present our chl licence when required to I.D to a police officer which would be only when lawfully detained , NO? Or would the fact that your are a chl holder with a handgun make it that Texas penal code 38.02 does not apply to you? I am asking because I truly do not know.

Bolton Strid wrote:

Tracker wrote: Playing the MDA/devil's advocate I'm going to throw these out. What if you refuse to give your CHL because you clearly are simply siting on a bench having a cup of coffee, minding your own business and reading this forum? Can you be arrested and charged if you refuse claiming the 4th? If an LEO believes the mere sight of an OC justifies probable cause that you could be committing a Class A violation under 46.02, can he draw is weapon on you until you present him with your CHL?

I'd say you'd win the Disorderly Conduct consolation prize - the catch-all, be-all charge when nothing else fits, which bedeviled OCers in Utah and Wisconsin until their respective legislatures redefined it in the last few recent years.

CJD wrote:

Tracker wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

Tracker wrote:
Any confusion among LEOs could be cleared up quickly by an opinion from the state attorney general, Ken Paxton. Maybe we should all email him the [pre-paid legal]'s video along with arguments posted here for a legal opinion from his office.

How to Request an Attorney General Opinion
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... al-opinion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The law doesn't go into affect until Jan 1 specifically because law enforcement wanted the time to instruct/train their officers. If there's confusion about what they can or cannot do with regards to someone OCing the AG should clear it up early on.

I hope you are correct but the fact that LEO's screamed as loud as they did about the Huffines/Dutton amendment and lack of clarity in present discussions in the media indicate to me that their is need for clarification and it should be done sooner than later before officers get some bad training.

I sure don't see any LEO's saying, "no we didn't need Huffines/Dutton anyway because of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits, court rulings........" or making any attempt to clarify.

Typical "Mushroom" Law Enforcement/Politics, keep'em in the dark and feed them Baloney Sandwiches. Cops love grey areas.

I pulled the following code from this video " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas penal code 38.02 states
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/38/38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person;

Yes but there is this bit of code as well:
"GC §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."

LSUTiger wrote:

Tracker wrote:
Any confusion among LEOs could be cleared up quickly by an opinion from the state attorney general, Ken Paxton. Maybe we should all email him the [pre-paid legal]'s video along with arguments posted here for a legal opinion from his office.

How to Request an Attorney General Opinion
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/op ... al-opinion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The law doesn't go into affect until Jan 1 specifically because law enforcement wanted the time to instruct/train their officers. If there's confusion about what they can or cannot do with regards to someone OCing the AG should clear it up early on.

I hope you are correct but the fact that LEO's screamed as loud as they did about the Huffines/Dutton amendment and lack of clarity in present discussions in the media indicate to me that their is need for clarification and it should be done sooner than later before officers get some bad training.

I sure don't see any LEO's saying, "no we didn't need Huffines/Dutton anyway because of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits, court rulings........" or making any attempt to clarify.

Typical "Mushroom" Law Enforcement/Politics, keep'em in the dark and feed them Baloney Sandwiches. Cops love grey areas.

LSUTiger wrote:I agree that "I honestly don't know, except to say this is clearly unsettled and a real issue. It should, and very well could have been settled with the Huffines/Dutton amendment. I find the argument that it didn't have support dubious considering it passed both houses. " (nlyric)

IMHO, police wanted to intentionally leave a "gray" area of sorts where things are not explicitly stated in regards to what they can and cannot do but rather rely on peoples ignorance and or unwillingness to "beat the wrap but not the ride" when attempting to stand up for their rights, effectively leaving it up to police discretion to threaten and intimidate so they can discourage any lawful practice. Who wants to get arrested then have to fight in court and rely on some other precedence that may or may not be interpreted as it should?

Just like "in a manner calculated to alarm", omitted or vaguely defined wording leaves both some LEO's and NON-LEO's with an open or false interpretation of what is allowed and not allowed.

I have already heard false interpretation of what the police can do on the radio in interviews with some local CLEO's. No mention of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits or court rulings. From radio talk show guy, just that the lack of the amendments in question means the police can do what they want and from CLEO's, not correcting the talk show host but just saying they are looking at ways to handle this (meaning they know better, just looking for a loophole, other than articulable reasonable suspicion). Spin, propaganda and confusion are already being promoted.

LEO's who decline to respect the constitution and law/case precedence are not deserving of the badge.

nlyric wrote:

Tracker wrote:

I called [pre-paid legal] and talked to a lawyer and that is their view. They can stop, detain, and you will be required to produce chl/id. Because it is illigal in Tx to carry a handgun. We are simply the exceptions.
Long guns not the same as there is no law. So no papers please/ no I'd/ no detain. Unless of course there is RAS of a crime. Or concensual of course.
I think their logic is that the fact that only 3% of Texans have been granted exceptions, that it could be reasonable to assume a crime by the mere sight of a handgun. They seemed sure there will be law suits, but not so sure of the outcome in the 5th circuit. As their are some liberal judges. Not all but some.
This is the way I understood my conversation with them.