You'll Love What DPS in Palo Pinto County is Doing!!

[JALLEN]

All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

The law only refers "license holder". So I'm guessing that would include out-of-state licenses. However, there is NO requirement to inform for MPA carry. And since the officer is very unlikely to know about other states licenses (unless you tell him), it would seem that not displaying and claiming MPA if discovered, would be a workable solution. IMO, IANAL.

Does the MPA allow you to have the weapon on your person, like in an IWB on your belt, or is it merely to have a loaded weapon in the car somewhere?

[gigag04]

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.


...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

[E.Marquez]

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.


...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

Thank you
Polite, professional, truthful response..


I'd still have an issue with that action of course, and make said LEO's life marginally more difficult for his decision by pestering the department leadership, the media, the justice department, and anyone else I think I could professionally, politely poke to bring pressure on the department which allows, suggests, or advises it's officer to disarm citizens in what amounts to a stretch of the law’s intent. ..

"I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety"

That would apply to the edged weapon I carry as well, Im not obligated to inform you of... and is of more safety concern at that close distance then my gun.
It also applies to the other edged and or blunt force weapons at hand in my vehicle, also not required by law to be announced to the LEO.(I MUST tell you about the hand gun carried under CHL, I’m not obligated or required to say or answer you questions reference other weapons, I just can’t lie)

Bottom line, you (not actually YOU Gig, as I get, you don’t let your guard down regardless... )
THE LEO has made them self LESS safe, by “disarming” me, because as now you have the misconception that I am unarmed… a bad tactical position to be in.

Of course as I pose NO DANGER to a LEO under any imaginable condition.. .. Should one decide to disarm me of my lawfully concealed hand gun…never fear… the rifle, the edged weapons, and other items used to stop a threat, are of no threat to you officer….and we will just leave them where they normally reside thank you, while you write me a ticket for the tail light out or speeding violation..

[smoothoperator]

In short, I do not think this is the kind of advice we old-timers should be giving to newbies. I would think we should be responsible enough to educate them on what the law requires, not on how to get around what the law requires. To tell them that they are unlikely to be caught is, to me, not an acceptable excuse.

I used to think that way but changed my mind because of the stories I hear about disarming Texas license holders and using it as an excuse for a fishing expedition by running serial numbers, etc. If it was just the internet, I might suspect urban legend, but I know people irl who were disarmed because they were open and honest. That's unacceptable to me.

If some people care about their rights, it makes a lot of sense for them to get off the list of people to hassle during traffic stops. Therefore, after considering the current situation, I don't plan to renew. The time and money saved is a nice bonus, but the main driver is not getting hassled for having a Texas CHL. As a RKI, I also share my cost benefit analysis with friends and coworkers who ask about getting a CHL. It's the right thing to do.

[sjfcontrol]

All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

The law only refers "license holder". So I'm guessing that would include out-of-state licenses. However, there is NO requirement to inform for MPA carry. And since the officer is very unlikely to know about other states licenses (unless you tell him), it would seem that not displaying and claiming MPA if discovered, would be a workable solution. IMO, IANAL.

Does the MPA allow you to have the weapon on your person, like in an IWB on your belt, or is it merely to have a loaded weapon in the car somewhere?

It allowes you to have a loaded handgun anywhere in a vehicle you own, or is under your control. That CAN be on your person, but you can't step out of the vehicle with it.

[WildBill]

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.
...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

Thank you
Polite, professional, truthful response..

[C-dub]

But, GigAg or any other LEO doesn't know me from Adam. I haven't been there, but I do understand his point of view. I wouldn't like being disarmed, but I understand it. What I don't like and don't understand is the checking to see if it is stolen. There is a real potential that the serial number could be associated with my name somewhere in an unauthorized database. That is not appealing to me. It's the potential for abuse that bothers me. The police department wouldn't do that you say. Just take a look at the NYPD's surveillance of mosque's that are not even in NYC.

[sjfcontrol]

All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

The law only refers "license holder". So I'm guessing that would include out-of-state licenses. However, there is NO requirement to inform for MPA carry. And since the officer is very unlikely to know about other states licenses (unless you tell him), it would seem that not displaying and claiming MPA if discovered, would be a workable solution. IMO, IANAL.

In my opinion we would be doing a disservice to our common bond and inviting the law enforcement community to change its current positive attitude (in general) toward those holding CHLs, if we, regardless of there now not being a penalty, do not comply with the law by inventing a tricky way to avoid complying with the law.

Back in the day, in my service what is proposed here would have been referred to as "sea lawyering." I will go so far as to suggest that to not tell the truth to an LEO by way of one's intentional silence perhaps amounts to lying to him. If so, I think one will find that there is indeed a penalty for doing that.

If the fact that you are armed and have an out-of-state CHL comes to light, and I assure you I am capable of inventing such a scenario, sea-lawyering like suggested here would be an open invitation to reopening the question of the elimination of a penalty for failure to advise, and might likewise be an open invitation for a requirement to similarly advise the LEO of your exercising the MPA, with penalty for failure to do so.

Might a suggestion like this also affect some attitudes toward reciprocity?

As a minimum, as Mr. Allen suggests very politely, "there may be some unpleasantness." It may be rather ironic for a suggestion to made here in a thread started by an issue about LEO "unpleasantness." Has it been suggested that we avoid unpleasantness by inviting unpleasantness?

In short, I do not think this is the kind of advice we old-timers should be giving to newbies. I would think we should be responsible enough to educate them on what the law requires, not on how to get around what the law requires. To tell them that they are unlikely to be caught is, to me, not an acceptable excuse.

Jim

Or...
We can explain the law to "them" (newbies, as you named them). The implications of that law. The penalties if they are found (properly or improperly) in violation, and let them make up their own mind as to their comfort level for their activities. In this particular case, the law doesn't even specify a punishment for a CHL holder not displaying -- most likely because it is recognized that someone carrying in their vehicle WITHOUT a CHL (MPA) has no duty to inform, so why should a licensee? (Much less a licensee from another state?) The legislature hasn't quite gotten there yet, but I believe we are working in that direction.

I prefer to believe in the the intelligence of the "newbie", and their ability to work out their own comfort level.

[brainman]

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.


...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

Thank you
Polite, professional, truthful response..

It is a good response, but I, too, have to take issue with it. Please note that I'm not personally attacking you, Gig, or any LEO, but merely using the comments to a "judge" that you used.

If I were the judge, DA, etc., I would listen to your remarks and point out that most of what you've discussed are things that occupy your attention and which don't really have anything to do with someone being armed. In fact, in all of what you've said, you didn't really point out why an armed CHL holder presents a safety risk, other than the mere fact that said CHL holder is armed. I would then ask whether you feel your safety is compromised when you spend your time around other armed persons (other LEOs) who commit crimes at a higher rate than CHLs and whom have presented the world with plenty of instances of negligent and unsafe firearm handling. I would also then ask why, if your safety was at risk, you turned your back on the CHL holder while you walked back to your car at the end of the encounter. [On that last part, I'm not using you personally, but instead using the actions I've read from several board postings in people's encounters with LEO that choose to disarm]

Obviously, there are certain circumstances that would warrant a feeling of heightened danger. DWI stops or family violence, as mentioned by Gig above, are examples. But, in the example proposed by Bronco, none of that is an issue.

[57Coastie]

All this disarming and searching sounds like a good reason to get a nonresident license that doesn't show up on some antigun cop's computer. What the antigunners don't know can't be used to hurt me.

Doesn't Texas law require you to inform you are carrying whether you have a resident Texas CHL or some other state CHL?

I realize the penalty for not doing so has been deleted, but if the officer spots it but hasn't been told, there may be some unpleasantness.

The law only refers "license holder". So I'm guessing that would include out-of-state licenses. However, there is NO requirement to inform for MPA carry. And since the officer is very unlikely to know about other states licenses (unless you tell him), it would seem that not displaying and claiming MPA if discovered, would be a workable solution. IMO, IANAL.

In my opinion we would be doing a disservice to our common bond and inviting the law enforcement community to change its current positive attitude (in general) toward those holding CHLs, if we, regardless of there now not being a penalty, do not comply with the law by inventing a tricky way to avoid complying with the law.

Back in the day, in my service what is proposed here would have been referred to as "sea lawyering." I will go so far as to suggest that to not tell the truth to an LEO by way of one's intentional silence perhaps amounts to lying to him. If so, I think one will find that there is indeed a penalty for doing that.

If the fact that you are armed and have an out-of-state CHL comes to light, and I assure you I am capable of inventing such a scenario, sea-lawyering like suggested here would be an open invitation to reopening the question of the elimination of a penalty for failure to advise, and might likewise be an open invitation for a requirement to similarly advise the LEO of your exercising the MPA, with penalty for failure to do so.

Might a suggestion like this also affect some attitudes toward reciprocity?

As a minimum, as Mr. Allen suggests very politely, "there may be some unpleasantness." It may be rather ironic for a suggestion to made here in a thread started by an issue about LEO "unpleasantness." Has it been suggested that we avoid unpleasantness by inviting unpleasantness?

In short, I do not think this is the kind of advice we old-timers should be giving to newbies. I would think we should be responsible enough to educate them on what the law requires, not on how to get around what the law requires. To tell them that they are unlikely to be caught is, to me, not an acceptable excuse.

Jim

Or...
We can explain the law to "them" (newbies, as you named them). The implications of that law. The penalties if they are found (properly or improperly) in violation, and let them make up their own mind as to their comfort level for their activities. In this particular case, the law doesn't even specify a punishment for a CHL holder not displaying -- most likely because it is recognized that someone carrying in their vehicle WITHOUT a CHL (MPA) has no duty to inform, so why should a licensee? (Much less a licensee from another state?) The legislature hasn't quite gotten there yet, but I believe we are working in that direction.

I prefer to believe in the the intelligence of the "newbie", and their ability to work out their own comfort level.

I would suggest that you send a copy of your advice to the DPS and every membr of the state legislature. (Or should I do it, but only with your consent? Any objection? I look forward to your public response.)

Jim

[sjfcontrol]

Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.


...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

I would also (respectfully) point out that nothing in that explanation had anything to do with the specific stop in question, except that you knew the licensee was armed. If the legislature intended for you to be able to disarm ANY armed driver, it would not have placed the qualifications on the officers ability to disarm a licensee (I.e., somebodies safety). They would have simply said the officer may disarm at will.

Also, given that explanation, how do you protect yourself from the equivalent individual carrying under MPA where no notification is needed? Do you (theoretical you, not you spaeifically) ask everybody you stop if they're armed? What if they don't answer?

[smoothoperator]

What if they lie? If they're a felon carrying illegally, SCOTUS said they're allowed to lie.

[alvins]

So if someone is pulled over for speeding. they are a chl and armed and the officer disarms them because they feel they are going to get shot. so your going to tell me the offenders car cant be used as a weapon also? and they better not pull you over on the side of the road because a passing car could plow into the officers car also. If the officer thinks someone with a gun is such a risk they should worry about eliminating all other risks.

[apostate]

Does the MPA allow you to have the weapon on your person, like in an IWB on your belt, or is it merely to have a loaded weapon in the car somewhere?

Texas Penal Code § 46.02 makes it an offense for someone to carry a handgun "on or about his or her person" unless he or she is covered by MPA, CHL, or some other exception or defense. It doesn't matter if it's loaded or unloaded.

A handgun not "on or about" one's person was kosher in vehicles even prior to MPA. I knew quite a few people in the early 90s who had handguns in their vehicles (but carefully not "on or about" their person) before the CHL law passed. Of course, there were also those who purchased a hunting license every year because, after all, there was no closed season for rabbits in Texas.

[gigag04]

I was going to reply to some of the more relevant responses, but I see this going nowhere good methinks. Ill shoot a few of you a PM and call it good.