TexasCHLforum.com

As a retired police officer, I think the amendment was unnecessary. I thought it was much ado about nothing and did not care either way, at first. I actually agree that the amendment MIGHT help cut down on the equivalent of racial profiling (gun owners), if not on real racial profiling.

But I opposed it because I think it would be a simple thing to abuse. Think about how easy it would have been for a conference committee to change it to say may stop instead of may not stop. And I know that would still be unconstitutional, but we have laws like that on the books right now. For example, we have a law that says police may stop any motorcyclist to check if his helmet is DOT approved. And we have the law that says you must show your CHL when stopped and asked for your regular ID.

I always worry more about how laws can be abused by unscrupulous officers and legislators more than about what good they can do if handled properly.