TexasCHLforum.com

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:Well, it's been interesting. But I'm done debating folks who know they're opinion is the only correct opinion. Agree to disagree.

As for Chief Acevedo, he's a worthless Kalifornia commie. Period.

It has been interesting and I can agree to disagree as well.
I will retract my previous comment based on your last.

I think that's an opinion we can all rally around.

A-R wrote:

Winchster wrote:

Taypo wrote:This may come off as antagonistic, but its not meant to be. In the perfect gun rights utopia, we're all considered normal for carrying a gun. In the real world, however, we're a massive minority and open carry is likely to bring attention at some point.

For those of you that are concerned about police attention and/or MWAG calls, why not continue to conceal? Nobody is forcing you to open carry, yet there is a near constant undertone of folks worrying about how often they're going to be stopped/questioned/harassed/annoyed/etc.

Yeah, I know you'll have a right to do something but for some, it sounds like that right is causing more stress than convenience.

No stress, just disagreement about what constitutes harassment. I feel the same about all my licensed activities. Unless I'm violating a rule regarding said activity, there's zero reason to question me about it.

Devils advocate: unless it is readily apparent by casual observation that you're NOT violating rule or law, then an LEO has a responsibility to investigate further, especially if requested/instructed to do so by superiors and/or concerned citizens.

Wrong. Police must have a reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime, not a reasonable suspicion that you are not committing a crime.

Now, of course, the police have every right to investigate whether or not a crime is being committed, in this scenario, as long as the subject is not detained without reasonable suspicion.

If we didn't have 4th Amendment protections, police could just stop everyone and detain them until they confirmed no crime was being committed. They could pull over every car and search every house, just to make sure nothing illegal was inside.

A firearm, when carried lawfully, does not constitute reasonable suspicion. (Black v. US, 4th Circuit) So if a cop doesn't know if you have a license or not, the standard of reasonable suspicion is not met. He has no reason to think you don't have a license. However, if the cop knows you are a felon (or otherwise lack a license) due to his/her previous interactions with you, the cop does have reasonable suspicion.

A-R wrote:Chas, as usual, is spot on. I'll only add a caveat to this link I started be certain we're all on the same page using same language to describe same police action ... viewtopic.php?f=82&t=77279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Above referenced case law in Chas' post states an investigatory stop/detention is not authorized for merely MWAG (and no other factors). But a voluntary/consensual contact (see the give-n-take hypothetical scenario/script I wrote a few posts back) is not a stop/detention.

I was also about to post US v. Black but Charles put it a lot more elegantly than I could have.

I would also agree that A-R's scenario wouldn't be an investigatory stop as long as the license holder consents to the stop and conversation. If the license holder asks to leave or does not consent to the demand to display ID, the officer should let the license holder go on his/her way. Only after a person asks to leave and is denied should it be considered a detention UNLESS there are other factors that would cause a reasonable person to believe he/she was not free to go. (Example: lights/sirens are activated on the police car, or several officers are surrounding the subject with guns/tasers drawn.

stash wrote:would someone direct me to where I can see the text on the new 30.06. I have been following all this but I must have missed change on the 30.06.

Here you go:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 00910E.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Search for "SECTION 42"

I'd copy and paste it here, but there's no way for me to strike through text on this forum.

Old wording:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to
carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not
enter this property with a concealed handgun"

New wording:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06,
Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a
concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter
411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not
enter this property with a concealed handgun"

nightmare69 wrote:As a LEO, I'm not looking forward to the influx of calls of someone OC a firearm. Unfortunately, we have to go and check out all calls no matter how silly. Hopefully it won't last long as I would rather spend my time answering legit calls.

As long as it's a consensual conversation, and not an investigatory stop or detention.

This amendment passed on HB910, hopefully it makes it through the Senate too.

Sec. 411.2049. CERTAIN INVESTIGATORY STOPS AND INQUIRIES PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not make an investigatory stop or other temporary detention to inquire as to whether a person possesses a handgun license solely because the person is carrying a partially or wholly visible handgun carried in a shoulder or belt holster.