TexasCHLforum.com

Yes sir. That's good news.

Mr. Allen, my diatribe was totally tongue-n-cheek. You really hit the nail on the head. PC is the missing ingredient. My opinion, there is no more PC to run the serial number on a weapon legally in your possession and with no direct involvement in the original reason for detention than it would be to check everything in your possession. If you were stopped for shooting out the car window, rudely displaying a weapon, murder, that is one thing. Now, keep in mind, I have never been infected by a doctorate in jurisprudence so I try to operate under the application of common sense. Once you enter a court room, all bets are off. And I never gave anyone a citation. They had to earn it the old fashion way.

I would say that if the LEO is uncomfortable with anyone they have official contact with being armed, they should disarm the person. That will lessen the possiblity of someone doing something stupid and lessen the tension. Now, I understand your implied comment. Yes, it is partly professional courtesy. And I would be more at ease with an armed LEO than anyone else, but that is dangerous also. Would it be more equal to treat all the same? Yes. Is it practical? Not always. But from a legal standpoint, disarming the CHL is allowed by law. Disarming the LEO is allowed in certain circumstances. But if you expect LEO's to treat the rest of the world like they do fellow LEO's, it ain't going to happen. Safety should be the primary focus but then there is reality, which gets you injured or killed sometimes.

The LEO's I have stopped in the past had to identify themselves to know that they were LEO. If they had proper ID and a badge, that was the end of it. I don't know of a statute that would allow you to disarm an LEO unless they were involved in some major crime such as DWI, murder, etc. Certainly not for a traffic violation. Anyone else I stopped that was not a CHL and had a weapon, I took the weapon and generally arrested them. The reasons to allow someone to have a weapon in their vehicle at that time were a defense to prosecution, not an immunity to arrest. Common sense usually prevailed but I did have an occasional lapse. I retired before this new provision to allow almost anyone to have a weapon concealed in their vehicle. I never disarmed a CHL that I remember. A good bit of law enforcement requires common sense and good communication.

I will preface this by saying I was a Texas peace officer for 35+ years. I stop you for some traffic offense and determine you have a CHL (you show it or TCIC indicates it). So I asked about the weapon. I ask you to hand over the weapon for my safety. I have already (or will) run your DL and the car registration to verify if it is accurate and current. Why, because I witnessed you using those things. In doing so, I automatically get a warrant check on you and a stolen vehicle check on the car. If all that checks out, I should issue a warning (writen or verbal) or citation on the traffic offense, return your weapon and cut you loose.

But, I decide to run the weapon to see if it is stolen. I didn't observe you using the weapon. The weapon has no connection to the offense for which you were detained. You complied with the law and showed valid authorization to have the weapon in your possession. I know the CHL is valid and current and yours because I have a DL to go with it.

You have a laptop in your car. Why don't I run the serial number on that? Might be stolen. You have a Rolex watch on. Why not run the serial number on that? Why not ask to see all the money in your wallet to make sure none of it is counterfeit? Maybe run the serial number of your car radio. Ask to see the receipt for all the stuff you have in those Target bags in the back seat. Run all your credit cards.

Point is why would I single out one object in your possession over all others that have the same chance of being illegal in some respect or other? If it is doing you a favor to make sure your gun is not stolen, why not go all the way and run everything in your possession with a number in the name of customer service?

I believe most of this is inspired by cops (or their supervisors) that are not happy with citizens being allowed to carry a weapon. Just my 2 cents. But, I wouldn't push the issue on the street. I would comply and then write a letter or consult an attorney.