Response From DPS Regarding Policies When Encountering CHLer

[AEA]

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)

[E.Marquez]

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)

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

[anygunanywhere]

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)

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

[Keith B]

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)

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 Speaking for Mr. Marquez, but I believe the issue is that if the officer is seizing the weapon upon arrest, then he feels you should be able to do it. Adding a part about not running ANY CHL's serial number would preclude that option.

[thatguy]

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)

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

If a LEO stops another LEO, (off-duty or otherwise) is it policy for the officer to check serial numbers on that gun in an effort to be thorough? Police Officers have been known to commit crimes as well...or is it just simple language to commit to policy? The language in the law says REASONABLY feels for a good reason.

My problem is not so much being disarmed as it is with being disarmed as a matter of policy. Disarming a person for any reason is dangerous and should not be done on a whim. I don't feel a CHLer needs to have their serial numbers ran as a matter of course, we are not common criminals, we have had background checks and our statistics put us in the VERY bottom of conviction rates.


Off rant...

[E.Marquez]

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)

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.

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?

[E.Marquez]

If a LEO stops another LEO, (off-duty or otherwise) is it policy for the officer to check serial numbers on that gun in an effort to be thorough? Police Officers have been known to commit crimes as well...or is it just simple language to commit to policy? The language in the law says REASONABLY feels for a good reason.

My problem is not so much being disarmed as it is with being disarmed as a matter of policy. Disarming a person for any reason is dangerous and should not be done on a whim. I don't feel a CHLer needs to have their serial numbers ran as a matter of course, we are not common criminals, we have had background checks and our statistics put us in the VERY bottom of conviction rates.


Off rant...

There in is the issue .. WHAT POLICY? What is this policy folks keep referring to.
There is no LAW, nor Code we have seen and DPS states there is NO POLICY.. So what policy are you referring to?

There is a Texas Penal Code which gives the officer authority in a very broad manner to disarm you.. I don't like it, but it is there.
There is a Criminal code which directs the officer to do a NCIC check for stolen property when a firearm is in his possession for any reason... I don't like it, but it is there.

I think our argument is in the code and law... Not a mystery policy that no one has ever seen.

[JKTex]

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)

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.

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.

[Kythas]

If an officer takes possession of the firearm due to a specific circumstance, such as your being arrested or being in an accident, I would see the possession being legitimate.

However, asking you to disarm in order to run the NCIC check isn't. He doesn't have possession of the firearm prior to asking you to disarm, so asking you to disarm if his intent in asking you to disarm is solely to run the check would not be an appropriate method to establish possession.

[E.Marquez]

If an officer takes possession of the firearm due to a specific circumstance, such as your being arrested or being in an accident, I would see the possession being legitimate.

However, asking you to disarm in order to run the NCIC check isn't. He doesn't have possession of the firearm prior to asking you to disarm, so asking you to disarm if his intent in asking you to disarm is solely to run the check would not be an appropriate method to establish possession.

Agree..

But then we are back to what IS happening.. not the what if as stated above.

Disarming under safety
THEN
NCIC check.

It is two separate things BOTH allowed as the code is written as far as I can see.

[E.Marquez]

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.

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.

[E.Marquez]

Adding a part about not running ANY CHL's serial number would preclude that option.

I agree it would preclude that.. Is that what we want?

An officer to not have the ability to check a weapon taken from a CHL'er though NCIC?
Or do we wish to place limitations on that ability?

AGAIN,, ME, MY OPINION... I simple wish to place limitations on when a officer can run a weapon though NCIC.

Minor violations.. = No NCIC check... though I understand that I may still be disarmed should the officer feel there is any reasonable (in his mind) safety issue.

Serious violations (yet to be properly defined) = ability to do NCIC check

[Keith B]

Adding a part about not running ANY CHL's serial number would preclude that option.

I agree it would preclude that.. Is that what we want?

An officer to not have the ability to check a weapon taken from a CHL'er though NCIC?
Or do we wish to place limitations on that ability?

AGAIN,, ME, MY OPINION... I simple wish to place limitations on when a officer can run a weapon though NCIC.

Minor violations.. = No NCIC check... though I understand that I may still be disarmed should the officer feel there is any reasonable (in his mind) safety issue.

Serious violations (yet to be properly defined) = ability to do NCIC check

I was agreeing with you and disagreeing with AEA's thoughts of adding 'Do NOT run serial numbers (NCIC Check) of valid CHL holder's handguns. (PERIOD)'. This is NOT what we would want.

[57Coastie]

That's just the sort of logic that begs for an Attorney General opinion.

DING -- DING -- DING. Another winner.

Jim

[JKTex]

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.

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.

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.