Search found 3 matches

Return to “DPS Serial Number Check Strategy”

by EEllis
Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:49 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: DPS Serial Number Check Strategy
Replies: 78
Views: 13859

Re: DPS Serial Number Check Strategy

ldj1002 wrote:I have read this thread and it mostly refers to CHL holders. This thread gives conditions where LEO can disarm a CHL. OK, What if same conditions exist except I am not a CHL holder but I have the gun in my car legally. I am waiting for my CHL to be processed. Maybe I shouldn't have got it. Is the laws you all refer to for CHL only?

Nope it's well established that it's constitutionally within the authority of any police office to secure any weapon during a custodial encounter. Basically if they can keep you from walking or driving away they can temporarily secure anything they consider a weapon until the end of the encounter or you are arrested. Personally I think the chl thing was put in to eliminate some of the arguments that people would try saying that they didn't have to allow officers to disarm them. It also sets a specific penalty for a chl doing so rather than the generic obstruction charge or whatever the DA might choose instead.
by EEllis
Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:41 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: DPS Serial Number Check Strategy
Replies: 78
Views: 13859

Re: DPS Serial Number Check Strategy

RottenApple wrote:
EEllis wrote:
2firfun50 wrote:
I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder,
officer, or another individual.
Why should they need to explain? It is well documented by court cases and officers are trained that it's reasonable to secure firearms in any custodial situation. All they have to say is "for safety" and they are good. This is even without the additional written authority to disarm license holders.
If you file a formal complaint, and that complaint eventually lead to a day in court, the officer may be required to explain his reasoning. If the officer says (as was claimed in one of the posts in this thread) that he is disarming "to check if the gun is stolen", then he clearly is not disarming for safety reasons (which is legal). And should it come down to a court case (don't see why it would, but lets pretend), he is going to perjur himself if he tries to claim it was for safety. Can I prove it? Yes. Because I have started recording all encounters I have with LEOs. Fortunately that's been a grand total of 2 since I've had my CHL.

Look, I don't want to give a LEO a hard time, they've got a tough enough job as it is, but I'm not going to be passive in asserting my rights and, should it be necessary, trying to correct an injustice. As I said earlier, should I ever find myself in this situation, I'll request that he call a supervisor. If necessary, I'll comply. But I will be filing a complaint at the first opportunity.

Honestly I think it's pointless theorizing which may get someone in trouble because they may decide to go all "I know my rights!" based on what people here state as settled points of law. I doubt a court would ever even make a cop say why they secured a gun on a stop. Courts have ruled that it's reasonable for any office to secure any weapon in any custodial stop. Cops are trained to do so for "safety" even when they aren't really worried about the weapon. Focusing on that issue is foolish and won't go anywhere. Clearly it's legal and a usable loophole that I have no doubt will be open no matter what internet warriors think of it. Now maybe focusing on the DPS policy, or even just covering the S/N as discussed may be an option, but the attempt to re-engineer current law by saying that things "should be" is a waste of time.
by EEllis
Mon Jun 10, 2013 11:38 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: DPS Serial Number Check Strategy
Replies: 78
Views: 13859

Re: DPS Serial Number Check Strategy

2firfun50 wrote:
I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder,
officer, or another individual.
Why should they need to explain? It is well documented by court cases and officers are trained that it's reasonable to secure firearms in any custodial situation. All they have to say is "for safety" and they are good. This is even without the additional written authority to disarm license holders.

Return to “DPS Serial Number Check Strategy”