Search found 3 matches

Return to “Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer”

by JKTex
Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:56 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer
Replies: 171
Views: 27730

Re: Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering C

gigag04 wrote:The fix is to reword "possession for any reason" to exclude a routine disarming of CHL holders or when MPA criteria are met.

Common sense would dictate that outside of those issues, a check might be in order, but until it goes down on paper, the troopers are bound by their policy since it says "shall" and not "may."
That's why I question the interpretation. If the officer subscribes to the notion that he/she can disarm someone on a simple traffic stop and they are required to do a NCIC check, then they'd also be bound to what appears to be their process, which they can't do if all they've done is disarmed someone on a simple traffic stop. It appears they are to have a printout of the check and it should be attached to the property form (whatever it's called) which they aren't filling out because it's not being taken into possession.

I guess I'm hung up on how they define the terms they use considering there appears to be a big difference in taking possession, and disarming, even though the common definition of possession would apply but it creates a contradictory situation.

I could be all wrong too. :txflag:
by JKTex
Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:09 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer
Replies: 171
Views: 27730

Re: Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering C

E.Marquez wrote:
JKTex wrote:
That's different from what you said before, as far as how it read from this side.
Well we can agree to disagree.. I believe it is exactly what I said,not different and I KNOW it is what I intended for the receiver to understand..
That you interpreted it according to your personal position, education, ect and then came out with a different meaning to my post is a different thread.

I accept I wrote it in a manner that allowed at least two people to misread the post and NOT comprehend the intent. :thumbs2:

The bottom line.

It would seem in the IANAL mode... the Law supports an officers disarming you if they believe it is a safety issue.. and that feeling of reasonable safety concern is not something you can really prove or disprove on the side of the road or in a court.

As well it would seem, once the gun is in the officers possession FOR ANY REASON... the NCIC is also not only allowed, but directed by the criminal code.
MY OPINION IS Just me now,,, just MY OPINION... I dislike the wide authority officers have to disarm us.. I dislike the authority an officer has to detain me further and run my weapon for stolen property when I have not been suspected of or caught with stolen property or any other serious offence.
I DO agree an officer should have the legal position to run a thieves weapon though NCIC..

I am E.Marquez and I approve this message. :smilelol5:
I think you're misunderstanding, otherwise there wouldn't be a need for 4 lines of snarky defense.

But on to the subject, if an officer disarms you for safety reasons, then runs a NCIC check, how can he carry out the rest of their process, since the gun is not being seized?

That's what's got me stuck thinking that the intent is not to allow an officer to just take someones firearm to run an NCIC. Whether some LEO's misuse or don't understand the policy is another thing.
by JKTex
Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:22 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer
Replies: 171
Views: 27730

Re: Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering C

E.Marquez wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
E.Marquez wrote:
AEA wrote:How about just forget about wading through their Policy directives and make them add this:

HQ-CHL (insert where appropriate)
Do NOT run serial numbers (NCIC Check) of valid CHL holder's handguns. (PERIOD) :banghead:
Perhaps because as the stats show,, Texas residents who have a valid CHL, do in fact commit crimes. From Domestic assault to DUI, theft to receiving stolen property to rape and murder. I would prefer those folks with a valid CHL have there weapons serial number run though a NCIC
You go right ahead and volunteer to have yours run for NCIC check. Do not speak for me, thank you very much.

Anygunanywhere
Not sure how you came to that position and response. :headscratch

However if you are caught in the act of steeling property, have a CHL and gun on you.. I do want the officer to have the legal ability to run your gun though a NCIC check.

Not sure why that offends you.

Nor in any way did I speak for you or any other person.. May I suggest you calm down a bit and reread my post.. feel free to point out where I stated MY opinion was yours?
That's different from what you said before, as far as how it read from this side. I thought the same thing as he did but that clarifies what you mean. The discussion was about a simple traffic stop on the side of the road and the officer disarming a CHL holder. A crime is a whole new ballgame.

Form the way the law is written, it seems to me it does not define disarming someone at a time other than a crime or arrest is being made, is NOT what the policy is referring to when they MUST pull a NCIC check. If an officer does, it seems a copy of the check still needs to be filed somewhere considering the importance of it being done.

I'd like to hear what Charles has to say about it too. It's easy to get caught up in all the internet law and forget about the real law. :txflag:

Return to “Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer”