TexasCHLforum.com

Tracker wrote:

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.

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.

Tracker wrote:

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.

If we take [pre-paid legal]'s opinion to heart and you assumption that 3% of the population has a CHL - I actually discount that percentage and think it should be higher simply because that 3% includes everyone under the age of 21, mentally disabled, and people in the rest home - LEOs could argue they are obligated to check everyone they see carrying openly and dispatch would have to direct an officer to MWAG 911 calls.

There's been some talk on here that Austin PD might pursue a policy of stopping everyone they see OCing. According to [pre-paid legal] opinion, the APD could argue 46.02 as their justification to detain and demand to see a CHL. Supposed APD does follow that policy it sets up arguments for a Dutton amendment or even unlicensed carry in the next legislature. But this brings up some questions.

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?

And like I asked in an earlier post, 46.02 doesn't apply to pre -1899 BP replicas. So you could have two 2nd amendment activists out on the town together, one carrying a modern semi and the other a replica. Under [pre-paid legal]'s legal opinion and officer can detain and demand a CHL from the semi carrier but he could not detain and demand ID from the replica carrier?

Tracker wrote:

If what he's saying about section 46.02 is right then LEO could always demand ID from groups like OCT, yes/no?