U.S. Law Shield - Gun Law Center: Texas Open Carry is Immine

[Tracker]

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?

[nlyric]

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?

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.
Even after Joan Huffman removed it in committee in the Senate it still passed. And I have heard the argument for her removing it was "it didn't have the support to pass" . Either she was really wrong in that assumption or it was removed for some other reason.
Without being privy to the inside information I can only make guesses on the 360 degree turn around that occurred with the amendment. My inferences are a bit disturbing.
IMO they did the pooch on this one.....

I agree with you on the 3%..... Let's just say a small minority.
I like your post it sheds a lot of light on the futility of attempting to legislate our way back to the 2A....

[poppo]

I think he has an interesting point and might be right. I don't believe he is right, but he might be. We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to carry a pistol if you are off your own property. That is PC section 46.02. Section 46.15 says that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL. Normally, I would say this means it is legal and you cannot be accused of violating 46.02. But, and this is an important but, I have a vague recollection of a problem once before with the wording of the law. I remember some court case that said there were only defenses (including affirmatuive defenses) or exceptions which must be stated as exceptions to the law. The wording "does not apply" does not fit into either of these categories. I hope Charles can remember this case better than I can and can tell us the actual terms and rulings and what it might mean in this debate.

There are old SCOTUS rulings that say a police officer does not have probable cause if the behavior is at least as likely to be legal as illegal. This is important because it might allow a police officer to argue that the behavior is not as likely to be legal. Remember how small a percentage of the population have CHLs. If the meaning of does not apply turns out to be a defense instead of an exception, it would certainly allow officers to claim that the behavior is illegal and only a defense exists. If it turns out to be an exception, an officer might still be able to claim the odds are in favor of illegal behavior based on the percentages. I think the court case would turn out poorly for the officer, but I can see soem of them, especially with certain DAs backing them up, makign the argument.

The red text is correct. Let's change a few words to see if it changes our view:

We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to drive a car if you are off your own property.

There - that also seems to be true. Does that grant the LEO the right to stop us for no reason whatsoever, other than to see if we have a license?

Nah, I think not.

Going with the earlier number of only 3% who have a CHL and probably less that would OC, and if one wanted to make the analogy with a vehicle as you did, it would be more correct of an analogy if the person were driving a vehicle that somehow was significantly different than 99% of the other vehicles on the road. And that person probably would be stopped.

All I am saying is that IMO the vehicle analogy is flawed. A better (but not perfect) analogy would be stopping a person who has farm tags on their truck/trailer with questionable cargo to ask questions to see if it is indeed ag-use.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think he has an interesting point and might be right. I don't believe he is right, but he might be. We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to carry a pistol if you are off your own property. That is PC section 46.02. Section 46.15 says that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL. Normally, I would say this means it is legal and you cannot be accused of violating 46.02. But, and this is an important but, I have a vague recollection of a problem once before with the wording of the law. I remember some court case that said there were only defenses (including affirmative defenses) or exceptions which must be stated as exceptions to the law. The wording "does not apply" does not fit into either of these categories. I hope Charles can remember this case better than I can and can tell us the actual terms and rulings and what it might mean in this debate.

There are old SCOTUS rulings that say a police officer does not have probable cause if the behavior is at least as likely to be legal as illegal. This is important because it might allow a police officer to argue that the behavior is not as likely to be legal. Remember how small a percentage of the population have CHLs. If the meaning of does not apply turns out to be a defense instead of an exception, it would certainly allow officers to claim that the behavior is illegal and only a defense exists. If it turns out to be an exception, an officer might still be able to claim the odds are in favor of illegal behavior based on the percentages. I think the court case would turn out poorly for the officer, but I can see soem of them, especially with certain DAs backing them up, makign the argument.

I don't recall the case either, but you are correct. Only express "exceptions" are exceptions, everything else is a defense to prosecution, unless it expressly an "affirmative defense" to prosecution.

The 4th, 6th and 10th circuit court decisions holding that merely openly carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion may or may not have been in states where unlicensed open-carry is legal. That could make a difference. However, the driver's license issue seems to be on point, so it wouldn't be a stretch for a federal court to rule that even in licensed open-carry states, carrying openly alone is not a basis for reasonable suspicion.

All of this is going to be academic if Grisham continues to get publicity arguing with COPs while carrying his AR. The legislature will not be in the mood to amend the statute with that kind of COP-baiting and bad press.

Chas.

[jmra]

I think he has an interesting point and might be right. I don't believe he is right, but he might be. We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to carry a pistol if you are off your own property. That is PC section 46.02. Section 46.15 says that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL. Normally, I would say this means it is legal and you cannot be accused of violating 46.02. But, and this is an important but, I have a vague recollection of a problem once before with the wording of the law. I remember some court case that said there were only defenses (including affirmative defenses) or exceptions which must be stated as exceptions to the law. The wording "does not apply" does not fit into either of these categories. I hope Charles can remember this case better than I can and can tell us the actual terms and rulings and what it might mean in this debate.

There are old SCOTUS rulings that say a police officer does not have probable cause if the behavior is at least as likely to be legal as illegal. This is important because it might allow a police officer to argue that the behavior is not as likely to be legal. Remember how small a percentage of the population have CHLs. If the meaning of does not apply turns out to be a defense instead of an exception, it would certainly allow officers to claim that the behavior is illegal and only a defense exists. If it turns out to be an exception, an officer might still be able to claim the odds are in favor of illegal behavior based on the percentages. I think the court case would turn out poorly for the officer, but I can see soem of them, especially with certain DAs backing them up, makign the argument.

I don't recall the case either, but you are correct. Only express "exceptions" are exceptions, everything else is a defense to prosecution, unless it expressly an "affirmative defense" to prosecution.

The 4th, 6th and 10th circuit court decisions holding that merely openly carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion may or may not have been in states where unlicensed open-carry is legal. That could make a difference. However, the driver's license issue seems to be on point, so it wouldn't be a stretch for a federal court to rule that even in licensed open-carry states, carrying openly alone is not a basis for reasonable suspicion.

All of this is going to be academic if Grisham continues to get publicity arguing with COPs while carrying his AR. The legislature will not be in the mood to amend the statute with that kind of COP-baiting and bad press.

Chas.

I do wish we could vote that idiot off the island.

[G.A. Heath]

I think he has an interesting point and might be right. I don't believe he is right, but he might be. We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to carry a pistol if you are off your own property. That is PC section 46.02. Section 46.15 says that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL. Normally, I would say this means it is legal and you cannot be accused of violating 46.02. But, and this is an important but, I have a vague recollection of a problem once before with the wording of the law. I remember some court case that said there were only defenses (including affirmative defenses) or exceptions which must be stated as exceptions to the law. The wording "does not apply" does not fit into either of these categories. I hope Charles can remember this case better than I can and can tell us the actual terms and rulings and what it might mean in this debate.

There are old SCOTUS rulings that say a police officer does not have probable cause if the behavior is at least as likely to be legal as illegal. This is important because it might allow a police officer to argue that the behavior is not as likely to be legal. Remember how small a percentage of the population have CHLs. If the meaning of does not apply turns out to be a defense instead of an exception, it would certainly allow officers to claim that the behavior is illegal and only a defense exists. If it turns out to be an exception, an officer might still be able to claim the odds are in favor of illegal behavior based on the percentages. I think the court case would turn out poorly for the officer, but I can see soem of them, especially with certain DAs backing them up, makign the argument.

I don't recall the case either, but you are correct. Only express "exceptions" are exceptions, everything else is a defense to prosecution, unless it expressly an "affirmative defense" to prosecution.

The 4th, 6th and 10th circuit court decisions holding that merely openly carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion may or may not have been in states where unlicensed open-carry is legal. That could make a difference. However, the driver's license issue seems to be on point, so it wouldn't be a stretch for a federal court to rule that even in licensed open-carry states, carrying openly alone is not a basis for reasonable suspicion.

All of this is going to be academic if Grisham continues to get publicity arguing with COPs while carrying his AR. The legislature will not be in the mood to amend the statute with that kind of COP-baiting and bad press.

Chas.

Sadly I suspect he thinks he is making a case for something along the lines of the Huffines/Dutton amendment.

[cw3van]

I think he has an interesting point and might be right. I don't believe he is right, but he might be. We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to carry a pistol if you are off your own property. That is PC section 46.02. Section 46.15 says that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL. Normally, I would say this means it is legal and you cannot be accused of violating 46.02. But, and this is an important but, I have a vague recollection of a problem once before with the wording of the law. I remember some court case that said there were only defenses (including affirmative defenses) or exceptions which must be stated as exceptions to the law. The wording "does not apply" does not fit into either of these categories. I hope Charles can remember this case better than I can and can tell us the actual terms and rulings and what it might mean in this debate.

There are old SCOTUS rulings that say a police officer does not have probable cause if the behavior is at least as likely to be legal as illegal. This is important because it might allow a police officer to argue that the behavior is not as likely to be legal. Remember how small a percentage of the population have CHLs. If the meaning of does not apply turns out to be a defense instead of an exception, it would certainly allow officers to claim that the behavior is illegal and only a defense exists. If it turns out to be an exception, an officer might still be able to claim the odds are in favor of illegal behavior based on the percentages. I think the court case would turn out poorly for the officer, but I can see soem of them, especially with certain DAs backing them up, makign the argument.

I don't recall the case either, but you are correct. Only express "exceptions" are exceptions, everything else is a defense to prosecution, unless it expressly an "affirmative defense" to prosecution.

The 4th, 6th and 10th circuit court decisions holding that merely openly carrying a handgun is not reasonable suspicion may or may not have been in states where unlicensed open-carry is legal. That could make a difference. However, the driver's license issue seems to be on point, so it wouldn't be a stretch for a federal court to rule that even in licensed open-carry states, carrying openly alone is not a basis for reasonable suspicion.

All of this is going to be academic if Grisham continues to get publicity arguing with COPs while carrying his AR. The legislature will not be in the mood to amend the statute with that kind of COP-baiting and bad press.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton I agree 100% sir with your post. I was pleasantly surprised that our lawmakers pushed OC through after Grisham & his group pulled the stunt in the lawmakers office. Again I'm very thankful for OC doubt I will be doing much of it but will be nice in the Texas summer not to have a coat on hand when I need gas while travling. Also thanks for your hard work this session sir.

[Vol Texan]

I think he has an interesting point and might be right. I don't believe he is right, but he might be. We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to carry a pistol if you are off your own property. That is PC section 46.02. Section 46.15 says that 46.02 does not apply to a CHL. Normally, I would say this means it is legal and you cannot be accused of violating 46.02. But, and this is an important but, I have a vague recollection of a problem once before with the wording of the law. I remember some court case that said there were only defenses (including affirmatuive defenses) or exceptions which must be stated as exceptions to the law. The wording "does not apply" does not fit into either of these categories. I hope Charles can remember this case better than I can and can tell us the actual terms and rulings and what it might mean in this debate.

There are old SCOTUS rulings that say a police officer does not have probable cause if the behavior is at least as likely to be legal as illegal. This is important because it might allow a police officer to argue that the behavior is not as likely to be legal. Remember how small a percentage of the population have CHLs. If the meaning of does not apply turns out to be a defense instead of an exception, it would certainly allow officers to claim that the behavior is illegal and only a defense exists. If it turns out to be an exception, an officer might still be able to claim the odds are in favor of illegal behavior based on the percentages. I think the court case would turn out poorly for the officer, but I can see soem of them, especially with certain DAs backing them up, makign the argument.

The red text is correct. Let's change a few words to see if it changes our view:

We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to drive a car if you are off your own property.

There - that also seems to be true. Does that grant the LEO the right to stop us for no reason whatsoever, other than to see if we have a license?

Nah, I think not.

Going with the earlier number of only 3% who have a CHL and probably less that would OC, and if one wanted to make the analogy with a vehicle as you did, it would be more correct of an analogy if the person were driving a vehicle that somehow was significantly different than 99% of the other vehicles on the road. And that person probably would be stopped.

All I am saying is that IMO the vehicle analogy is flawed. A better (but not perfect) analogy would be stopping a person who has farm tags on their truck/trailer with questionable cargo to ask questions to see if it is indeed ag-use.

Sure, I understand your thought process here (regarding population density of drivers vs. CHL holders), so let's take the analogy a bit further:

We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to cut hair professionally. You have to have a cosmetology license to do so. (Gosh, there is even a case where a lady is arguing that she should be allowed to do nothing more than braid hair, without the chemicals, etc. associated with a 'typical' stylists' chair). But yet, it would seem a bit of an overreach to have police officers walking door-to-door checking cosmetology licenses for all folks at every SuperCuts in Texas.

Or this one...

We need to remember that the general law is that it is illegal to be an interior deigner if you are off your own property. Sure, you can pick out paints for your own house, but if you do professionally without a license, then you're breaking the law. Do we have LEOs checking on this regularly? Are they stopping by every permitted remodel and making sure the consultants are licensed? I'm sure this is not the case - they have much more important things to do.

The analogy still holds in these cases (yes, I'm presenting 'out there' examples, but I'm trying to bookend this discussion with the crazy ideas). Simply doing an act that requires a license to be done (cutting hair, picking out curtains for someone, etc.) is not sufficient RAS to question the person for their license. Sure, a lot more than 3% of the people drive, but I would wager that the population density of cosmetologists or interior designers is closer to that of CHLs than it is to the population density of drivers.

Sorry if I'm a bit of a rant on this one...I just woke up after a 24-hour plane ride, and I have a bit of energy!

[android]

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

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.

The fact that the law clearly states it is not reasonable will mean that when this happens the officer will NOT have qualified immunity. After the first LEO loses everything he owns, it will stop.

[LSUTiger]

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.

[Tracker]

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.

[LSUTiger]

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.

I hope you are correct but the fact that LEO's screamed as loud as they did about the Huffines/Dutton amendment and lack of clarity in present discussions in the media indicate to me that their is need for clarification and it should be done sooner than later before officers get some bad training.

I sure don't see any LEO's saying, "no we didn't need Huffines/Dutton anyway because of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits, court rulings........" or making any attempt to clarify.

Typical "Mushroom" Law Enforcement/Politics, keep'em in the dark and feed them Baloney Sandwiches. Cops love grey areas.

[Tracker]

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.

I hope you are correct but the fact that LEO's screamed as loud as they did about the Huffines/Dutton amendment and lack of clarity in present discussions in the media indicate to me that their is need for clarification and it should be done sooner than later before officers get some bad training.

I sure don't see any LEO's saying, "no we didn't need Huffines/Dutton anyway because of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits, court rulings........" or making any attempt to clarify.

Typical "Mushroom" Law Enforcement/Politics, keep'em in the dark and feed them Baloney Sandwiches. Cops love grey areas.

I pulled the following code from this video " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas penal code 38.02 states
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/38/38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person;

[CJD]

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.

I hope you are correct but the fact that LEO's screamed as loud as they did about the Huffines/Dutton amendment and lack of clarity in present discussions in the media indicate to me that their is need for clarification and it should be done sooner than later before officers get some bad training.

I sure don't see any LEO's saying, "no we didn't need Huffines/Dutton anyway because of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits, court rulings........" or making any attempt to clarify.

Typical "Mushroom" Law Enforcement/Politics, keep'em in the dark and feed them Baloney Sandwiches. Cops love grey areas.

I pulled the following code from this video " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas penal code 38.02 states
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/38/38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person;

Yes but there is this bit of code as well:
"GC §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."

[Tracker]

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.

I hope you are correct but the fact that LEO's screamed as loud as they did about the Huffines/Dutton amendment and lack of clarity in present discussions in the media indicate to me that their is need for clarification and it should be done sooner than later before officers get some bad training.

I sure don't see any LEO's saying, "no we didn't need Huffines/Dutton anyway because of 4th Amendment, Constitution, case precedence, law suits, court rulings........" or making any attempt to clarify.

Typical "Mushroom" Law Enforcement/Politics, keep'em in the dark and feed them Baloney Sandwiches. Cops love grey areas.

I pulled the following code from this video " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas penal code 38.02 states
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/8/38/38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person;

Yes but there is this bit of code as well:
"GC §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."

Yes, and because of that an officer can lawfully detained to demand ID. Personally, I don't care if it's once in awhile....but...I might care if I was walking 6th street in Austin and had an officer stop me every block to detain, and ask for ID. You know some activist is going to test encounters with police.