TexasCHLforum.com

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.

A-R wrote:

Want a "reason"? How about the First Amendnent, does that work for you? Just because someone has a badge does not mean they don't also enjoy the same rights to free speech as you and everyone else. A cop can walk up and ASK you anything they want. You can respond or not however you chose.

You cannot seem to grasp the concept that ASKing and DEMANDing are two completely different actions. There is really nothing more to discuss until you grasp this concept.

Winchster wrote: My turn to ask, Do you honestly think it's ok to approach someone that is not breaking ANY law and impose yourself into their afternoon?

See my answer above. If someone without a badge walked up and asked you about your open carry gun, would you get all butthurt about that? What if a non-LEO stranger asked if you had a license for your gun, would that violate your rights?

But put a badge on someone and he can only take specific actions at specific times under specific situations that fit your worldview? If you don't want someone to "impose" upon you, the politely refuse to answer, or ignore and keep walking. You have a right to not be FORCED to identify yourself. You have no right to live in a bubble and never be approached nor questioned about anything by anybody. You have a right not to answer. You don't have a right to not be questioned.

1.) I understand officers have a first amendment right to ask me anything they so choose, I also have the right to not answer when asked, but I don't have the right to refuse the demand. See how neatly this plays? As to your condescending dismissal regarding my understanding of ask vs demand. I fully understand the difference, however, when someone in a position of authority asks, they are merely being polite, considering they have the authority to demand.

2.) There's no hurt going on here, merely an observation. You and I obviously align on different sides of this issue. You appear to feel it is perfectly justifiable to question each and every person you see doing something completely legal. And no, if a another citizen asks, since they have no authority to demand, there is no violation.

You can play all the word games you want, but we both know that if a person were to refuse to answer when asked, or ignore and continue walking, that action would create enough suspicion with the officer that he would then demand. Didn't work out exactly like you would prefer to pretend.

I can be forced, by virtue of statute, to present my license when demanded by law enforcement. I'm not going to break the law. I never asked to live in a bubble, I merely wish to live in a world where I am not harassed by law enforcement for doing precisely nothing illegal. The simple act of walking down the street with a holstered firearm is not reason enough to generate any contact whatsoever with law enforcement. Playing word games to reach your predetermined goal of "determining license status" doesn't change the fact that you feel justified in reaching that goal. Point is, there's no reason to play the word games, you could probably find a dozen justifiable reasons to stop and question someone walking down the street within minutes of observing them.

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.

Exactly, and the casual observer could easily be the LEO observing no violation and reporting back that no violations have been observed. Now, if ANY violation of any law is observed then the LEO can stop and do whatever he chooses. However, the mere sight of a holstered pistol should never be the sole reason for the questions.

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.

A-R wrote:
You hit the nail on the head. It is a very fine line. I understand you don't like that it is this way (how do you think LEOs feel, who have to walk this fine line all day every day?), but the LEOs don't make the rules - most simply do their best to abide by them while pushing right up to the edge of the rules so as to be able to do their jobs. And LEOs do this job to protect YOU.

Thing is, there's no reason to push right up to the edge of the rules. The rules are there to protect both of us, and I know plenty of officers that don't need to push the edge to do their job. They just do it within the confines that the rules allow. As to LEO's doing their job to protect me? That is not the focus of law enforcement. The courts have held The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.", so peddle those wares somewhere else.

A-R wrote: Do you honestly think any meaningful percentage of LEOs wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm gonna harass a bunch of people today, because it's so much fun to tip toe around the eggshells of jurisprudence while arguing with folks who think they're legal experts, but in reality are only experts in pontificating their own opinion of what the law should be"?

No. I firmly believe that the VAST majority of LEO's wake up, strap on the gear, and go to work thinking "I'm going to do the best job I can do today, and hopefully come home safe"
I will state this again, If I'm doing nothing illegal by walking down the sidewalk, openly carrying my holstered pistol, there is not one single reason in the world any LEO should be able to walk up and ask to see my license. The amendment to the bill, prevents openly carried firearms from being the SOLE reason I be questioned. Whether that's informal or formal makes no difference.
My turn to ask, Do you honestly think it's ok to approach someone that is not breaking ANY law and impose yourself into their afternoon?

A-R wrote:

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Oh I have a firm understanding of the difference between the two. I also live in the real world, the one that turns your stop from friendly to non friendly the second I tell the cop to pound sand. He is investigating a call dispatch received about a mwag and no matter how fine you want to split hairs or play semantics, there is no other reason to stop me yet. (Remember, we are living in your very short scenario world still. ) You even acknowledge that it would be harassment. I agree with you on that point and merely pointed out that this is exactly what the ammendment prohibits

I did not "acknowledge that it would be harassment"

what I actually wrote:positive contact," while possibly annoying or even borderline harassing, would look like this:

And you obviously don't grasp the difference because you still call the scenario a "stop" and it is not a "stop". It's a series of questions asked which the person being asked is under no legal obligation to answer.

Possibly borderline harassing then not full acknowledgement, granted.
And you continue to play word games. It will absolutely become a stop when I tell a cop that requests my ID as a result of a dispatched MWAG call, to pound sand.

Look, I get it, you're most likely a LEO and you are probably one of the many that would approach your given scenario with an open mind. And obviously feel justified in doing exactly what you described. I will never tell a cop to pound sand when asked, not because I don't feel like I'm within my rights to do so, but there is virtually zero chance of it going "my way" by doing so in your scenario. There is a very, and I mean very, fine line between the definitions of ask and demand. If it's one, I can tell him to pound sand, if it's the other, I can't, legally. And curbside lawyering never works out for the citizen.

A-R wrote:I'm suggesting your premise is preposterous. A LEO making a voluntary/consensual contact is NEVER prohibited. The fact you can't understand the difference between consensual and detained is your problem, not the cop's. A non-LEO citizen can REQUEST your ID too. And you can tell anyone (cop or otherwise) REQUESTING your ID to pound sand. The Texas statute specifically uses the term DEMAND in context for a reason. There are instances when a cop can DEMAND your ID (a lawful traffic stop being the situation most are familiar with).

Oh I have a firm understanding of the difference between the two. I also live in the real world, the one that turns your stop from friendly to non friendly the second I tell the cop to pound sand. He is investigating a call dispatch received about a mwag and no matter how fine you want to split hairs or play semantics, there is no other reason to stop me yet. (Remember, we are living in your very short scenario world still. ) You even acknowledge that it would be harassment. I agree with you on that point and merely pointed out that this is exactly what the ammendment prohibits

A-R wrote:

Winchster wrote:

A-R wrote:...But a voluntary/consensual contact (see the give-n-take hypothetical scenario/script I wrote a few posts back) is not a stop/detention.

In my opinion, the hypothetical give-n-take you wrote is what is specifically prohibited. As soon as the officer requests ID, I am legally bound to provide my CHL. It becomes blatantly obvious at that point that I have been detained for no other reason than to determine my license status. I've never seen or heard of a LEO approaching someone just to "chat about the weather".

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=77279" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 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.

Are you suggesting that in your hypothetical I request the officer articulate whether he is asking or demanding for my ID?
You can't be serious.

Abraham wrote:As an aside to this thread, I'd like to ask: Why isn't the CHL enough identity all by it's lonesome?

Your photo's on it.

It's good enough by it's self in other uses as a stand alone identity.

But, in addition to providing your CHL, LEO's want your DL too.

Why?

Because for some ridiculous reason it isn't considered a "primary" form of ID

A-R wrote:...But a voluntary/consensual contact (see the give-n-take hypothetical scenario/script I wrote a few posts back) is not a stop/detention.

In my opinion, the hypothetical give-n-take you wrote is what is specifically prohibited. As soon as the officer requests ID, I am legally bound to provide my CHL. It becomes blatantly obvious at that point that I have been detained for no other reason than to determine my license status. I've never seen or heard of a LEO approaching someone just to "chat about the weather".